Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 68

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70→Archive 75

(Closed) McCain nom.

Many more words have been added to the pile, and we are evidently no closer to anything resembling consensus or a covergence of opinion, in spite of an interesting conversation on ITN's approach to deaths. Time to shut up shop, and turn the blurb-centric microscope off. Stormy clouds (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2018 (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 was offline Saturday and missed the McCain topic. Today, I'm shocked – despite our long history of garrulous and fractious RD debates – to find that it took 6,900 words of voluble discussion to settle the matter.
My longtime support for blurbs about notable deaths is eroding. Sca (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The last week has been a microscope onto the RD/Blurb distinction, to say the least. --Masem (t) 14:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Which I, for one, am okay with. I know these debates can get repetitive, but a discussion without effect can still be meaningful. I think we have reached consensus on two things: a) the collective is not happy with the status quo, and b) we don't prefer any specific alternative. ghost 15:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
One thing I think we can say is that in !voting for RD blurb posting "popular" is not an argument to use (which is not going to resonate with editors that do not frequent ITNC). --Masem (t) 15:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm admittedly pretty frustrated that I missed the blurb discussion, although I think the consensus is pretty clear at this point. For the record, my vote would have been a weak support blurb based on his public image. John McCain was a renowned war hero before ever entering politics, and later served as a high profile member of the United States Congress for decades. His notability exceeds that of most other American politicians who have never held the highest office in the land. Kurtis (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The nom was open for less than 11 hours, which was too short, and when I tried to boldly re-open it, it was closed again shortly afterwards. I still think there was a narrow consensus in favor of the blurb, but whatever. Davey2116 (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For those that are interested, I began something of a 'meta-analysis' of the overall trends at ITN/DC in recent days and I call upon those interested in finding a sustainable solution to contribute. I think few will disagree that the status quo is not workable. Colipon+(Talk) 20:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, 24 hours after it was reported, the McCain coverage remains the top international headline in multiple geographical regions. One most certainly cannot say the same about Atal Bihari Vajpayee, or even Aretha Franklin. Colipon+(Talk) 20:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Not where I live. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Franklin was topping headlines for at least two days where I live. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I've said it before: we are an encyclopedia, we need to put importance over popularity to avoid media bias. Vajpayee had much more influence on the world than McCain. --Masem (t) 20:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
      • What is McCain's legacy? Does he leave an oeuvre? Will he still be talked about on a daily basis in ten years time? Genuine questions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
        • As in my !vote - his main *lasting* contribution will be to campaign finance reform. But regardless of how locally important (and worthwhile!) that is to US elections - it is far from being important on an international level. Which like it or not, is where the bar is set for politicians. Short of being head-of-state or something on that level, there is almost never going to be consensus for politicians who have domestic importance. If people dont like that, really there are two options, lower the standards for a blurb, or restrict RD's to non-blurbs only. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Okay, so hardly "transformative", so not meeting the current RD blurb requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
            • Nope, hence my oppose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
              • McCain was probably the most important political figure in the US from the last 30 years who never became president. He had a gravitas that was greater than some of our presidents and his influence, especially in foreign affairs, cannot be overstated. He is likely the reason the United States normalized relations with Vietnam. Former President Clinton has stated that w/o McCain's support he could not have done it. He has helped shape US foreign policy as far back as the 1980's. When he showed up in foreign capitals he was received as the unofficial Foreign Minister of the US Congress. And of course he was well known for his independent political streak in domestic politics. I can understand why some oppose his nomination, but his influence in global affairs was quite extraordinary. And FTR I am not happy with the manner in which the discussion was closed down. The timing seems to have allowed almost every part of the world to have their say on the nomination except here in the US. His death was announced fairly late in the evening and by time most Americans were up and about on Sunday the discussion had been shut down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
                  • All that's nice and anecdotal but doesn't equate to transformative. He will leave basically nothing, no legacy, he seemed like a really nice guy and failed to become president a few times, but he certainly was not transformative. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Someone with an extraordinary influence in global affairs shouldn't need his homebase to wake up and vouch for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, and even with this disadvantage, there was a narrow consensus in favor of the blurb. Going on !votes, it was about 35 for support blurb, and 24 for oppose blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, if he was globally influential, a lack of American voters wouldn't be a disadvantage. And unlike when he was locally denied in 2008, the numbers don't mean anything if the arguments don't. Like then, there's a fair argument to be made that his race and gender during a "historic period" of prominent blacks and women genuinely disadvantaged him again, despite having the objectively greater contemporary transformative power in his Senate field. On that half of the criteria, he's unquestionably more qualified for a blurb than his strikingly familiar (though faded) counterpart Dennis DeConcini, but can you name three countries where he led, topped or won anything specfic? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The number of words written (and now being written here) on that nomination was a perfect example of Wikipedia's US centrism. That is one thing this thread should be aiming to address. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

→ One limitation to our RD-only section is it lists only names. For the sake of discussion: We might consider something like German Wiki's RD box, which lists names, ages, nationalities, occupations or fields, and dates of death. Today's version contains:

Kürzlich Verstorbene
Inge Borkh (97), deutsche Opernsängerin († 26. August)
Neil Simon (91), US-amerikanischer Dramatiker († 26. August)
Lindsay Kemp (80), britischer Tänzer und Pantomime († 25. August)
John McCain (81), US-amerikanischer Politiker († 25. August)
Dieter Thomas Heck (80), deutscher Moderator († 23. August)
Weitere kürzlich Verstorbene
Note that it includes a link to "more recent deaths" at the bottom. Sca (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That's what I proposed above, but it's getting opposed due to space limitations. Personally, I think having two or three "more detailed" RDs in the box would be better than having four or five names only. Maybe others disagree. Davey2116 (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
TRM's inveterate dissing of German Wiki's "terrible" editorial standards – which is some cases admittedly is well-founded – has nothing whatever to do with the multiple features of their RD section, which was my point here. Sca (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
No, de.wiki's RD section is a running joke with basically a couple of individuals cherry-picking themselves who gets selected and pays no attention to quality of content. We certainly don't want to follow their example in any shape or form. Sca, stop pinging me. Last warning. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • TRM: I fail to see any link between de.wiki's standards for what articles to post and de.wiki's main-page layout. The point is that you've made no substantive argument against the de.wiki RD layout, which Sca and I are proposing. And no, you can't follow up a non-sequitur with the text equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying, "La la la la la". Davey2116 (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't see how "the number of words written on that nomination" is a problem that should be "addressed". There are more U.S. editors, so when there's a U.S. story, there will inevitably be more interest. Davey2116 (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Still largely depends on the particular American story. Neil Simon currently trails the Catalans Dragons here. And the old Bishop of Phoenix isn't nominated at all (probably merely on expectation a new one shall rise from his ashes). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Haha. And yes, you make a good point. The editor I was responding to wasn't just claiming that U.S. stories often get more interest, but that this extra participation is a bad thing. Incidentally, in two hours the Jacksonville shooting discussion has grown to the size of the Catalans Dragons discussion, which was open for 20 hours. Of course, no one objects to the goal of including stories from around the world. I just think excluding globally-reported U.S. stories, where the articles are of good quality, is not the way to go. Davey2116 (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
For my part, I couldn't care less about where someone dies, where it's reported or what their article's like. We're on the Internet, everything's reported everywhere, every day. Compared to the American, the Ghanian and (especially) the Indian in the eye of this topical storm, McCain is more suitable for a blurb, given how his death necessitates the official transfer of his 1% of Senate power, making it a bonafide political story, with potentially juicy jibber-jabber. Beyond that, they all had nothing transformative left to lose, but had already finished living the interesting parts of their lives we remember fondly (or however) by clicking their names in Recent Deaths. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I am really struggling with this one; if we are indeed pushing "transformative" as the boundary for blurb vs. no-blurb, then it is difficult for me to see how Annan and especially Vajpayee has 'outdone' McCain on this front. Simply being in the highest 'office' does not make Vajpayee as somehow "transformative" leader - Gerald Ford was not one, and neither was Manmohan Singh (some considered him a proxy for Sonia Gandhi). Being elected to that office itself does not justify the blurb nomination. Vajpayee was consequential, perhaps, but the bar for world leaders should really be about somehow "changing the world" (hence "transformative"), and no one will argue that Vajpayee's influence was contained in South Asia, and mostly within India at that. So then since we are using "non-transformative" as the main argument to strike down the McCain nom, the only difference between the two seems to be that one held the highest office and the other didn't, which isn't by any means captured in any of our current guidelines - nothing there says that holding a certain office entitles you to a blurb. It merely says "transformative". So, that begs the question again of the issue of how we objectively evaluate ITN death blurbs. Seems very arbitrary to me. Colipon+(Talk) 10:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
The conclusion I am really led to draw by all of this is that there is no objective evaluation for ITN death blurbs, and it all seems to depend on a subjective "feel" of overall recognition or presence of a person. Musicians tend to have an easier time of this than others since the impact that they have is easily defined even if not objectively (you can hear their work even to this day). I very much predict that when Paul McCartney passes away, there will be a tidal wave of those clamoring for him to be posted as a blurb, plus a picture, with a "Sir" in front of his name for good measure. Same for Roger Waters or Ozzy Osbourne. Conversely, George H.W. Bush will have a remarkably more difficult time getting a blurb despite being a world leader, as he will inevitably be compared to Nelson Mandela which is an extraordinarily high bar to meet.--WaltCip (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
If McCartney dies tomorrow, Québec City will riot. If Waters falls, so falls Moscow. Ozzy fans would feel it especially hard in Allentown. But Bush's as free as a bird now. No amount of CIA money and cocaine was ever going to bring a 94-year-old recent widower, surrounded peacefully by family and presumably chopping more wood than an old man would, back to the world stage for "one last job". Only happens in the movies. In the real world, there'd be absolutely nothing shocking about a gentleman of his distinction just riding off into the sunset with Clint Eastwood and Kirk Douglas on predictably beaten dead horses as words we're barely expected to read fill up our screens, bottom to top. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
That's convincing, except now that we've set a precedent with Vajpayee, a very old, moderately influential head of government, it would be very difficult to justify not posting George Bush. Colipon+(Talk) 18:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
An elected leader (head of state) of a G8/G20 country is going to have implicit influence on the world, even if they are a "lame duck" in office. (If it were the case, I would not include a replacement non-elected leader that took the place of a leader that died, unless they held that space for a majority of the term, ala Garfield--> Arthur. ) --Masem (t) 18:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I am not opposed and I can see your perspective, though I think if we are expanding the 'scope' of blurbworthiness to include all former G20 leaders, then we are looking at some massive expansion of the number of possible persons being posted to an ITN blurb, probably to a much greater extent that we had originally imagined. And so it's clear it means some really obscure leaders like Naoto Kan and Paul Martin will be posted - people who are not ordinarily regarded to be "top of their field". At least, based on the interpretation of the current "rules", this would be a stretch. And I am not trying to argue - I really want to come to a consensus on this, but we need some objectively verifiable consistency in the way we evaluate things. Colipon+(Talk) 18:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
One of our problems at ITN right now is the obscure vs popular issue. If we used any former G20 leader, many of those are going to be obscure to American readers, but they aren't inconsequential for the world at large. We need to avoid the urge to rush "household names" to blurb (McCain meets that immediately) and try to balance our blurbs on a worldwide basis. It's just that it is hard with how Western media treats deaths of famous Western figures and hardly blips on importance figures outside that. That again goes back to why we aren't a news ticker and should fight the media coverage bias here; providing somewhat equal terms for world leaders would be a start and a rather simple objective one (short of article quality). --Masem (t) 21:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't want a blurb of McCain, or Franklin, or Vajpayee or Annan. I pushed hard to fix the criteria for ITN/RD because it largely put a stop to this bickering. I want to say, you don't combat "systemic bias" by suppressing stories about a region (the USA) you feel is over represented (the USA). We have a "please do not" for relating to a country, a "please do not" for ethnocentrism, there is a note about it in the instuctions -- just stop it already. The purpose of ITN is the most important part of the entire sub-project, if we'd just stick to that, we'd have diverse collection of topical quality content rotating through the main page, and our WP:READERS better off for it. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment II something I've noticed over the last weeks: we're acting like an "ITN blurb" is some sort of place of honor, where the best people in the world will be immortalized for all eternity. Come on. 1) It's just Wikipedia and 2) they're dead, they don't care. When you blurb a death, it pushes another story out of the box -- stories that don't already have a dedicated "ticker". We need to stop this already. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • IMHO this thread has run its useful course and any uninvolved experienced editor should feel free to close it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2018 (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) Deaths: No more "influential" criteria

A good faith suggestion, but not one I feel strongly enough to fight for, and the resistance is clear. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2018 (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 guess I'll throw on my proposal for everyone to oppose. Change the "death blurb" criteria to "Blurbs are reserved for individuals whose passing has become a worldwide media circus, with wall to wall coverage for days in multiple sources across different news media".

You can re-word that to be less terrible if you support the idea, which is: only people whose passing has been regarded as significant by actual news media would get blurbs. Yes this means Franklin would probably still get one, but Annan and Vajpayee would not, and that's a start. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose The criteria should be "Deaths will get a blurb when there is a consensus that the person merits one". I don't see why that is hard. --Jayron32 01:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
This is different proposal altogether and not related to the discussion at hand. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can we just remove ITN completely!? Banedon (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
You could just not participate at all. That would solve your problem there. --Jayron32 02:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Pretending a problem doesn't exist doesn't solve the problem. Banedon (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Neither do comments like the ones you made. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
You mean removing ITN wouldn't solve the problem? Banedon (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see the point of the proposal, and sympathise somewhat, but ultimately I agree with Jayron32 that "Deaths will get a blurb when there is a consensus that the person merits one" is a sensible approach to take. Stormy clouds (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC) - For what it's worth - I am fine with the current criteria too, and feel a move towards a more lax view will need clear guidelines set up.
  • Oppose all currently proposed changes. Laserlegs' pointy nonsense suggestion is ironically closer to an objective set of criteria (e.g. x days of coverage in y media outlets on z continents) which would result in much less pointless and regurgitated debate (see McCain) but would prevent blurbs being posted until after the event. Jayron's softening of the requirement would simply enable every single RD nomination to be required to debate a blurb as well, which would be chaos. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
    • The language may have been hyperbolic, but it wasn't meant to be pointy. Every death blurb pushes a non-death story out of the box - and deaths have a whole ticker to themselves. The blurbs should be very very rare IMO. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
      • It is rare. Do yourself the favour of counting death blurbs vs non-death blurbs, and I bet you a house that it's less than 1%. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Except for the three in the box right now .... whats happening is what I knew would happen: after Franklin got a blurb we posted a few more "because Franklin" then finally common sense prevailed and it settled down. I expect it'll be some time before we go through this again - it'd just be nice to never go through it again is all. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
          • No, that's life. Like when Apple had to make the shuffle function more random (by making it less random) because sometimes three tracks from the album came up in a row. There's only one in the box right now. And a better (and perennial) way of improving ITN is to get a better throughput of stories, not just throw the toys out when something challenging happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
            • I'm an Android user, there is no "random", only what Googles mind reader predicts I want next. I don't feel that strongly about it, honestly. I put it out there as a legit suggestion, but if you and Jayron are against it, it's as good as dead.
  • Would it be tenable to say (inclusively) "A death may merit a blurb if universal or near universal support exists for one in the discussion." A slightly higher standard, but easier for an admin to call. This would kill the !vote mobs, and still allow the likes of Hawking. The "no one gets a blurb" votes can be discarded. 159.53.110.140 (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
    You mean turn it into a pure vote? With more than 80% of editors being from the US, this would only serve to reinforce the problems we already have with systemic bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2018 (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.

I made a mistake?

I received the news that Dieter Thomas Heck died late on 25 August. I knew that I had zero time to update 26 August, so first updated on 27 August, then nominated. Was that a mistake? What should I do next time? Nominate without update? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You can always nominate anything without making any updates. Nominations can actively encourage others to get involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree, nomination often brings more edits and the article gets fixed faster. Apparently the nomination was closed because the most recent RD is later than 23 August, though my personal opinion is that we should stick to the day the death was reported, even if just a couple of days later. --Tone 08:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
So next time I bring it right away, even in a miserable state? - I didn't want that because I was one of the authors of the original, - a matter of pride, do you understand? - The reason in the close wasn't a date, but some "We don't ..." of which I didn't know. I fixed all references by now, and think an exception could be made. I remember the DYK in 2012, about overcoming a traumatic stutter by taking singing lessons. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Miserable state is fine. In fact, one man's "miserable" is another man's "jolly". A nomination can only really fail properly once, whereas advertising its potential for main page inclusion just might result in its improvement, perhaps not to the standard required, but an improvement nevertheless. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Will do next time, overcoming pride. Seems that many die whose articles I wrote, I notice it this year more than before, - getting older I guess. - What about this one and some IAR? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't nominate an article if the work required is clearly beyond what may be achieved in a couple of days (for example, a stub about a head of state). There are other venues in wikipedia that are better suited for long-term improvement of such articles. And if the bait is to see X at the main page, there's always the long-way road to "Today's featured article". Cambalachero (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
If that was an answer for me: when I nominated (because I couldn't keep my eyes open any longer), only the lists of shows and awards had no specific references (most were mentioned in the body, though.) FA is no option for me for Heck, - I actually don't care much about him. But he was an influential and well-known figure over decades, and deserves the simple mentioning of his name for one day, if you ask me. I feel awful for having missed that chance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
No, it was a general answer. I was not thinking about any user or article in particular. Cambalachero (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Understand. Indenting made look like a reply to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Inge Borkh

After all this, I nominated Inge Borkh, - not in a miserable state, but still missing references, - I added them now. Please check the nom (again). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: blurbs about death only if there's a separate article about the death and/or funeral

I'm not sure, whether this has been debated before, but I think the best approach to posting full blurbs about someone's death would be to do this only in such cases when the death and/or the funeral is notable enough to have its own article. All other deaths should go to the RD ticker instead. Would it drastically reduce the number of death-related blurbs? Probably so, and that's the point. It would reduce the number of cases to notably violent deaths, like assisinations, and big funerals that attracted heads of state from all over the world. Would it push people into writing articles about non-notable deaths? Hopefully not, but even if this happens, such an article should be nominated for deletion, which would disqualify it from ITN anyway. In any case, it would give us a cleared criterion than anything we've got at the moment. — Kpalion(talk) 16:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose I do not agree that the death itself must be a notable event. The decision of whether to post a death blurb should usually be based on the significance that the individual attained during his/her life, although exceptions may also be made for assassinations and similarly significant deaths. Lepricavark (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above. The current system is a decent one; the blurbs being posted are mostly the right ones (okay, maybe we shouldn't have posted Fisher and Lee, and maybe we should have posted Noriega, but mostly it's been alright) even if there's fractious debate along the way. The trouble here is that there are deaths which are notable events, but of people who wouldn't otherwise merit a blurb (JonBenét Ramsey), and deaths of people who would merit a blurb, but whose deaths were not notable events (Prince). Additionally, our disproportionate focus on figures from the anglosphere means that such articles are not always going to be created when justified, and vice versa. In general, not a bad idea, but quite unworkable here. Vanamonde (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: Aretha Franklin

Without a call to action, there isn't much to be done here -- and frankly death has been discussed to death. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2018 (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.

Just in case anyone thought that posting Aretha Franklin as a blurb was overblown, I'm seeing coverage from three separate sources of her death and legacy over a week after the fact: BBC, NPR, Sydney Morning Herald. This is the sort of ongoing widespread coverage one should expect to see for an individual whose death is posted as a blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you're overestimating the reliance of people here on evidence and sources when making Wikipedia-based decisions. The purpose of ITN for most people is to act as a cultural gatekeeper, and to make decisions about what should be important to the world, and to correct the world when it is wrong. It is not, for most people who vote, an opportunity to show people good Wikipedia articles about current events; rather it is to make sure that we enforce our own personal viewpoints on what should be important in the world. --Jayron32 13:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I assume this is cynical sarcasm.--WaltCip (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
While above comment was clearly tongue-in-cheek, ITN should act as a sensationalism and Western media bias gatekeeper (which may seem like a cultural one, but functionally far different). The whole point of the RD change was to make sure we didn't have any cultural gatekeeping to when we included an RD, but we do want to be careful with death blurbs to make sure we're not being sways by the volume of reporting and moreso about the significance of the person. Just because media continue to talk about someone's death a week out doesn't mean it was or wasn't appropriate for a blurb; we need to get editors off this idea that massive coverage equates to importance. --Masem (t) 13:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Which metric, outside of your mind, could someone use, all by themselves, and without any input from you, use to make a measure of significance? How is that measured so that we can have an equitable assessment of it just beyond "What people who showed up that day cared about?" The decisions to post or not post should not be based on the personal whims and interests of whoever can be most domineering at ITN. It should be based on a metric anyone could apply, so that we can eliminate biases. --Jayron32 17:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Step one is to figure out the field that the person should be compared to. Franklin was in the entertainment field, so trying to compare any response to her death compared to a person in a political field is not helpful. Then we can talk importance in that field, which should balance out the undue weight the field might get. But that also means we should reflect and consider that a field itself may be disprotionate in coverage. Entertainment gets a lot more coverage than politics, and that's something we have to discount.
But nearly all of this is adapting a philosophy of the like of WP:ATA. If a ITN !vote says "That person was popular, should get a blurb", or "Top headline a week later in major papers", or "I never heard of them, shouldn't get a blurb", those need to be discounted by the assessing admin. ITN blurbs are not popularity (or lack thereof) contests. We're not doing that, nor have advice for !votes to not do that either, and we need to put that in place first so that blurbs are factors only by their importance in the field. That's not going to prevent any future debates, but at least gets the constant arguments related to popularity off the table. --Masem (t) 18:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, most of the people who appear on Main page, because they've just died, don't lie in an open casket, in a church or museum., for several days before their funeral, all of which events are newsworthy in their own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't forget government buildings. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, a nice connection there. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

In fairness, the sources listed were very much western, English-language websites; these cultural figures often do not feature in the imagination at all in places outside of the western cultural sphere; for example if you were to walk the streets of Hyderabad or Chengdu (or even, say, Belgrade) you'd be hard-pressed to find a person who knows who she was. And that's just the systemic bias we deal with. Colipon+(Talk) 17:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The solution to that is to use sources from Hyderabad or Chengdu or Belgrade. More encyclopedia articles about current events, not less, is how we solve the problem. There are two ways to fight the English-language bias at Wikipedia: Eliminate work from English-language sources or Include more work from non-English language sources. Only one of those makes the encyclopedia better, so that's the one I support. We eliminate the bias NOT by denigrating or minimizing the hard work by people to improve articles that happen to be based on English-language sources, we eliminate the bias by doing work to improve even more articles, such as by focusing on things outside of the Western sphere. But we shouldn't then ignore or tear down the other good work that is done, merely because it is in English. --Jayron32 18:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Please don't get me wrong. I made that same argument earlier - I think in relation to Michael Jackson - a bona fide world-renowned figure whose death was also shocking. I am not talking about systemic bias of the encyclopedia at large, just on the arbitrary standards of "blurbworthiness" in the ITN section. We can work together to address it, but I think we can agree that the current standards are agreeable to nearly no one. Colipon+(Talk) 18:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't recall seeing any complaints from our readers. After all, the main page gets around 20 million hits per day, so if it was a real problem, you'd think we'd all have heard about it, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, several people, including IP users (presumably from the "general readership" that you are alluding to), came in after the blurb was posted to object to its posting, citing "not Mandela". Anyway, my point is mainly that, if we don't work towards a better standard for the blurb vs RD issue, we will continue to see these back and forth debates. And maybe some editors are ok with that. I find it quite untenable, however. Colipon+(Talk) 23:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment By this standard, with McCain's U.S. Capitol memorial service coming up later this week (where he will be eulogized by former Presidents Bush and Obama, and thus likely to generate significant coverage internationally), and his burial in a separate ceremony two days later, it's fair to say that McCain's death will receive the same type of sustained widespread coverage. Franklin's death was obviously blurb-worthy, but it should be clear that McCain's death was blurb-worthy, too. Davey2116 (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I made the argument in the original McCain nomination that judging on the global breadth of coverage, McCain actually has outdone Franklin by a wide margin; I examined newspaper sites in Brazil, China, France, Mexico, and Japan. To me it was clear McCain was considered a more widely known figure internationally compared to Franklin, even though Franklin has 'legend' status within the U.S. Colipon+(Talk) 23:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Question since apparently I lack the "authority" to close this discussion, could someone tell me what the desired outcome of this thread is -- and if there is no such purpose then perhaps an admin, or an arb, or Jimmy himself, someone with the requisite "authority" could close it? Thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

What's your beef? This is a mere 1,300 words, less than one-fifth of the verbiage expended on McCain – we're just getting started.
When they exhume Franco's remains, that will provide yet another pivotal talking point regarding dead (and in this case still dead) notables. Sca (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2018 (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.

Quick change note

Since it was bugging me, I added an extra doc page for the ITNC template to present a shortened version of that template that suits your typical RD nomination. That I've made sure is propagated in the template documentation as well as in the editnotice header on ITNC to help make things easier to post. --Masem (t) 19:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Staleness of the Recent Deaths process

Established ITN policies and consensus re-affirmed: we won't post articles in poor condition. WP:ITN has all the details if you need them. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2018 (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.

FYI, add Neil Simon to the list of very high profile folks who never made it to the list of "Recent deaths" on the front page because of the sourcing standards set forth here [1]. Regardless of your views about accuracy and sourcing, there's something broken if folks coming to our front page for the latest news are not seeing Alan Thicke, Merle Haggard or other famous folks in a timely manner. Stephen -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a problem with editors that edit those entertainment-related BLP pages (when they are alive) not including all the necessary sourcing from the start. Many of our celebrity BLP pages are in such crappy form because editors assume sources like IMDB are fine and all that. And when one sees 20+ works that need to be sourced, no one wants to pick up that load. (because it is legitimately a pain in the butt to do in a short period of time). The main page requires the quality of sourcing that many of these RDs simply can't get to or no one wants to do the work to try to do. We need to encourage editors to improve well before these BLPs likely will enter the RD queue (sourcing from the star). --Masem (t) 17:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • ITN is not supposed to give people the latest news. That would be the purpose of a news ticker, or news website, and we're neither of those things. The purpose of ITN is to highlight quality articles about current events. That's all. If the article is not of high quality, fix it, and it will be posted. --Jayron32 17:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yep, that's it really. If I see an RD pop up that's sub-par and I'm familiar with the subject, I'll often fix it - and a lot of other editors do the same. But if there isn't anyone willing to put in the work to do that, it won't get posted. Black Kite (talk)
  • 3 RDs were posted for yesterday's date and 2 more for the day prior. To call the RD process "stale" is a misnomer.--WaltCip (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Standards? RD has standards?!! Shame on that process.... Ticking along nicely I'd say. If people couldn't be bothered to get any particular article up to scratch (and meet BLP requirements), I'd say it was those folks' expectations that we'd post possible BLP violations to the main page that were broken, not the RD process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2018 (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.

Fix the heads of state ITN/R issue

There is a consensus forming around a possible solution to the "head of state" issue at WT:ITNR. Additional feedback would be helpful. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Brexit negotiations, 20 September 2018

OP was asking about Portal:Current events and has been assisted. WT:ITN is not the place to bicker about the significance of the ongoing trainwreck that is "BrExit" --LaserLegs (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2018 (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.

Shouldn't the "International relations" section (September 20, 2018) feature the negative reception by other EU leaders to Teresa May's Chequers plan, rather than the tame prospective "additional gathering in mid-November"?

--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Update: UK and EU 'at an impasse' in Brexit negotiations, says Theresa May ITV News, statement by Theresa May from No. 10 Downing Street. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Isn't that a portal issue rather than an ITN issue? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man I don't really do a lot of current events so I'm not that clear on how you alter it after the fact (or even if you can). I tried to get May's response onto today's current events Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Closed) International relations but that was as popular as a fart in a spacesuit. It's on every front page, the top story on broadcast news bulletins, and could bring down the government... but apparently none of that is big enough for Wikipedia's current events. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Well if you want something to feature on the main page, it needs to be nominated at WP:ITNC. The stuff that goes into the portal seems like a bit of a free-for-all, but I'm not close to that so unsure of the process. ITN, for all its shortcomings, at least uses a consensus for inclusion. I think the Current events portal talkpage is really where you need to be discussing this, but who really visits that? Do our readers even know of the existence of such "portals"?? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Just because there is media reaction to something doesn't necessarily make it appropriate for inclusion in WP or even to highlight in ITN or Current Events. To wit: Trump does a lot of stuff that gets headlined across the board in the US, but most of those are not necessary to document as they are at-the-moment stories. If it were the case here that May formally announced that UK will negotiate no further with the EU on Brexit, that might be something, but just having negotiations stall is not. --Masem (t) 15:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
You may be confusing Wikipedia:In the news with Portal:Current events. Feel free to edit Portal:Current events/2018 September 20 if you would like to change how that particular topic appears. Fuebaey (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The process - at least from my point of view - was:
  1. I clicked on "current events" to see how the main page was covering what happened in Salzburg, which is more than just the "negotiations having stalled", sterling has hit a 12 month low - Sterling plunges as May signals possibility of hard Brexit
  2. All I could see was a mention of the possibility of a November summit.
  3. I clicked on the talk page at the top of it I was directed WP:ITN/Candidates (I don't see how I am confusing the two, it's where I was directed.)
  4. Everything looks to be "in advance" - WP:In the news/Candidates#Voicing an opinion on an item, I wasn't trying to voice an opinion on a candidate item. I was trying to voice an opinion on an already approved item. I didn't realize you can change them when they are already up, but given the poor reception that WP:In the news/Candidates#(Closed) International relations got (WP:SNOW) any change I make will just get reverted.
The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney says no-deal (which just became more likely) could cause UK house prices to fall by up to a third but that = "not notable". There might be a November summit = "notable". That doesn't make any sense at all. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@The Vintage Feminist: - no one is denying the notability of Brexit and its negotiations. The fact that an article exists indicates that there is notability. The issue for ITN is that the negotiations are ongoing, and have been for years at this stage. However, your rationale of this importance of this development shows the issue - might, and could tell us that the impact of the collapse in negotiations is not crystal clear. Moreover, the stalling of negotiations that have (from my Irish perspective) been stalled for months on end, is not a development that needs to be listed at ITN. Brexit is notable and worthy of an ITN listing - not every twist of the long and winding road needs to be listed on the main page. Portal:Current events can be edited directly given a news source. ITN/C requires editors' consensus, and is a separate system. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@Stormy clouds: I wasn't expecting "every twist of the long and winding road" to be documented, the thing - which noone's explained to me so far - is why was the next-to-nothing-story of the chance of an additional meeting again November seen as worthy of being included on the main page, when the far, far more serious issue of the talks possibly being dead isn't. The reporting in the UK over the past two years has always been "there's a way to go" and "we're still talking" - this was different, Donald Tusk, President of the European Council was unequivocal "The suggested framework for economic cooperation will not work." --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Things being a "possibility" do not work well for WP due to we're not a crystal ball. News jumps on speculation, but we are writing on what actually happens. If the next meeting is actually cancelled, that might be worthwhile, but only being a chance it might be is not sufficient for us. --Masem (t) 13:10, 22 September 2018 (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.

Dangerously death-centric

Some context:

  • Despite my account age, I don't really understand the editing side of Wikipedia; I just dive down a discussion hole on a talk page every now and then. Please tell me if I do something wrong.
  • Relatedly, I don't know if this is in the right place. I assume village pump (policy) could also fit, but I figured that going directly to the relevant community was more effective.
  • I love Wikipedia and think it's one of the most important human projects. I read it voraciously.

I am hoping to start a conversation about the real, practical effect of a strongly negative (bleak, grim, dark) informational diet on the human psyche, and ITN's culpability in that process.

I see that the article I'm commenting on somewhat addresses this content-axis under the banners of both "appropriateness" and "ethics and morals". I also know how archivists, sorters and enumerators (encyclopedia editors) work, having those tendencies myself. What I read in those two paragraphs is a strong disinterest in grappling with grey areas and the preference to stick to a simple editorial policy ("is it notable?") which absolves the editor of ethical engagement. I understand this reflex, and I especially understand it in the context of a large, community project in which there are massive non-obvious overheads involved in having complex rules, or rules which allow subjectivity. The reality of the matter, of course, is that that's as substantial a defence as "just doing my job". The artefact created has some impact and the responsibility lies with its architects.

So a lot of people have made the news-doom-spiral argument and I don't want to insult the reader, but here's one form of it. Our species can now communicate more effectively than ever, and bad news is more compelling than good (arguably due to an evolutionary bias towards preferring false positives to false negatives when it comes to danger). The combination of the two means that any given list of notable (highly-consumed) news content is heavily weighted towards horrible stuff. A normal consumer of news, then, gains a model of the state of the world which is fundamentally inaccurate, because it aggregates all the most horrible stuff happening everywhere. The specific effects depend on the consumer, but it makes her world darker and colder and scarier. For the susceptible, and ultimately even the resilient, it leads to psychological damage.

I think that depression is an existential threat to our species, and that Wikipedia is (specifically in this way, not overall) making things worse. Some of the other infoboxes on the frontpage (the most important frontpage on the Internet, in my view) have similar issues, but "In the news" is the worst offender by far. It's an endless cavalcade of horrible murders, deaths, disjointed death toll counts, and then a "recent deaths" ticker at the bottom just in case you hadn't had your fill yet.

A very sensible dude called Tristan Harris often points to the status quo bias of humans, and I want to bring it up here. The way things are is just that - a given configuration. It's of course not arbitrary but it's most certainly not a fixture either. A lot of it wasn't designed with the reality of its impact in mind. Wikipedia occupies this unique combination of having massive traffic and not being bound by corporate insanity (Google and Facebook have a strong financial incentive to keep you horrified, upset, angry, etc). There is no community better equipped to make this kind of high-minded ethical decision.

So. Policy is hard. Responsibility is heavy. But by making the easy choice of continuing to pick the most simplistically notable entries as presented by the death-enthused media engines, the world is presented as darker than it is. (And I really don't mean to criticize the efforts of the tireless and unpaid volunteers who submit and vote on candidates. I don't think anyone is ill-intentioned here.)

So what would I suggest? There are many ways to improve things and I'm not claiming to be an expert. One thought I had was to add a "death and disaster" tab (or something better named) to the top of the info-box and move all recent deaths and cataclysms into it. Don't have it selected by default. At least let the reader have to choose to look into the abyss. Or remove them all and keep the death ticker, expanding it to include disasters.

But I would really like to hear views from the community on this one. I hope someone sees the logic in what I'm asserting, and I wish I could whip out the kinds of lovely references I know hold sway here, but just because this is something academia hasn't gotten excited about doesn't make it any less important for our species' continued wellbeing.

Love,

∴corp 11:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpsious (talk • contribs)

  • I'm fairly sure this has been proposed in the past. The main problem is that there isn't room on the Main Page for another box. Additionally, we have no control over the events of the world that occur that may merit posting to ITN. They sometimes come in waves. It's just the way it is. We can't fix the psychological problems of the world on this one webpage. If you would like to see different things posted to ITN, you are welcome to participate at WP:ITNC, making nominations of things you want to see, or opposing nominations that you don't want to see. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much for replying and sharing your view!
I really don't mean to come off as confrontational, and I recognize that this probably registers as not much more than an annoyance in your information-dense day, and that I can be wordy, but I feel like you didn't read what I wrote substantially. It wouldn't necessarily take up any more layout space (neither of the suggestions I made would, anyway). I directly addressed "It's just the way it is. We can't fix the psychological problems of the world on this one webpage." with the status quo bias paragraph and the one following it. Your second sentence there is particularly insidious in its defeatism - activism is and has always been about small actions adding up to larger impact. And I mentioned Wikipedia's unique position - as small actions go, Wikipedia's front page is a large one.
I recognize the fundamental truth you're pointing at. That's why I'm in such a tricky position. I'm suggesting an editorial policy change (which could take the form of a presentation-only change) which acts to counterbalance, to some very small degree, the feedback loop of existential psychological darkness. To me the ethics of this are utterly foregone. But I understand if not rocking the boat is a higher priority for you (not sarcasm or hostility, I promise) or indeed if I come across as a raving nutter.
I appreciate your advice about participating in ITNC and I will do my best to try out some participation. Unfortunately time is not a luxury I possess in great quantity. I was hoping to have a greater impact by starting a discussion among existing editors. I went searching and found this. It's pretty deflating that the attitude seemed to be a wall of "that's what news is, deal with it". On the other hand, it made me reflect on the reality that all a community project is is the actions of its members, so maybe I should consider proselytizing to those who are active on ITNC directly. Corpsious (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I examined your post carefully. I was not trying to suggest there was no merit in your views, but you seem to be speaking to larger societal and psychological problems than need to be addressed more broadly than changing a box on the Wikipedia Main Page. Our focus needs to be on improving this encyclopedia(specifically in this case the ITN box) and not fixing societal ills, of which over time I've seen at least a few others attempt here. As I stated, that doesn't mean you can't make nominations or support/oppose existing nominations based on your views- and I encourage you to- but it isn't a reason to change the Main Page. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I strongly disagree, but I hope I've at least made you consider the possibility that social change comes down to small actions taken by individuals, and that negativity feeds negativity. Thank you very much for remaining civil and recognizing my points :) Corpsious (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
A comment to add to what to 331dot has said: bad, death-centric news gets worldwide coverage and generally easily passes the bar for ITN. "Good" news is much harder to come by that has a significant effort and has sufficient global impact to get the coverage for ITN. This is an unfortunately part of how the news media work, and there's little we can do to change that, particularly when several death-related events happen in close proximity. --Masem (t) 13:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for replying! "What is notable in the news media" is quite far removed from "what ITN presents", unless equivalence here is a major ITN goal. There are many potential interventions beyond a unilateral dismantling of the news machine, such as a change in how what does make it to ITN is presented to counteract its impact. Corpsious (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I've often thought about tabs, or an infinite scroller, or similar, but the thing is, we're locked in to the en-wiki/MediaWiki CSS/JS package. A decade (more?) of attempts to redesign the main page have gone no where, so for now we're locked into the real estate we have. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:ITN#Purpose is fairly inclusive, but over the long years "consensus" has piled on numerous undocumented !rules about what we do/don't post which seems to limit the box to European sports and death. Some defenses you'll see: "That's what's in the news", "if you don't like it, nominate an article", "that's what consensus determined, and it's fine". There is also the often shrieked, (presumably while frothing at the mouth) claims of "systemic bias". That said, 331dot is right, participation at ITN/C helps, and you don't have to do more than read the target article and evaluate it against the criteria at WP:ITN. I hope you'll stick around. Cheers. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for replying! Your perspective as a (jaded?) insider is really interesting to me. I understand that ITN/C is the river's head and de-dooming the content at source would of course have an impact, but it seems to me that the process has stultified into what you describe. (I am of course not absolving myself of the responsibility to participate in ITN/C.) The presentation layer stuff strikes me as a more practical way to have a substantial impact on the tide of gloom. It didn't occur to me that frontpage changes were a technical challenge, though. I am curious about the particular shape of the constraints and I will do more research. Corpsious (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Our brief. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 • All attempts to sanitize, 'manage' or censor the news (or arts, or public discourse) are doomed to failure – witness, for example, samizdat. This is particularly so in the digital age. Sca (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a role to play for individual editors and the community as a whole. Suppose I wanted to get more science articles posted. So I take it upon myself to trawl for big news, update articles as appropriate, and nom at ITNC. There I run into a catch 22: as the MSM picks up on science stories before they are accepted fact, ITNC editors will say "wait for peer-review" if I post when it's ITN, or "stale" if I post after findings are confirmed. OKAY THEN, lets do an RfC, and say "heyguise - lets settle on when we post science stories." Half want it early, half late. No consensus, no policy. TL;DR - I think there is probably a way for this to be done if we all care enough to make it happen, but then I don't have the answer so maybe I'm being naive. ghost 16:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Jul–Sep)

This post attempts to highlight potential nominations that could be considered and where else to continue looking for news items. The recurring items list is a good place to start. Below is a provisional list of upcoming ITN/R events over the next few months. Note that some events may be announced earlier or later than scheduled, like the result of an election or the culmination of a sport season/tournament. Feel free to update these articles in advance and nominate them on the candidates page when they occur.

July
August
  • 4 August: 2018 Super Rugby Final
  • 5 August: 2018 BWF World Championships
  • 9 August: Fields Medal
  • 12 August: 2018 PGA Championship
  • 20 August: Hugo Award for Best Novel
    • September
  • 2 September: 2018 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final
  • 3 September: Rwandan parliamentary election, 2018
  • 9 September:
  • 17 September: 70th Primetime Emmy Awards
  • 23 September: Maldivian presidential election, 2018
  • 29 September: 2018 AFL Grand Final
  • 30 September:
    • Other resources

    For those who don't take their daily dose of news from an encyclopedia, breaking news stories can also be found via news aggregators (e.g. Google News, Yahoo! News) or your preferred news outlet. Some news outlets employ paywalls after a few free articles, others are funded by advertisements - which tend not to like ad blockers, and a fair few are still free to access. Below is a small selection:

    Newspapers
    News agencies
  • Associated Press (AP)
  • Reuters
  • Agence France-Presse (AFP)
  • Agência Brasil
  • Anadolu Agency
  • Press Association
  • TASS
  • Yonhap
  • Xinhua
    • News services
  • ABC News
  • Al Jazeera
  • AllAfrica.com
  • BBC News
  • CBC News
  • CNN
  • Deutsche Welle
  • Euronews

    • Unlike the prose in the article, the reference doesn't necessarily need to be in English. Non-English news sources include, but are not limited to: Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País. Which ironically are Western European examples (hi systemic bias). Any reliable African, Asian or South American non-English source that confirms an event took place can also be used.

    Happy hunting. Fuebaey (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

    (Closed) Purpose of ITN

    OP had a question, TRM answered the question. If there is a proposal for a change to WP:ITN#Purpose go ahead and start an RFC. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2018 (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.

    Is the primary purpose of ITN:

    1. To promote high-quality, recently created content by Wikipedia editors on subjects related to current high-profile news stories.
    2. To inform readers about the most important current news stories, globally.
    3. To inform readers about the most important current news stories, in English-speaking countries.
    4. Something else.

    After the latest contentious discussion, I must admit that I'm not sure what it should be, nor exactly how other editors feel about this part of the main page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

    The purpose of ITN is:
    To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
    To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events.
    To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
    To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.
    Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    Editors generally think of ITN in two camps: the first camp wants to feature news, the other wants to feature good articles. We've never decided which is the dominant purpose. If you ask me I'm firmly in the first camp (remove the quality criterion entirely), failing which I'd sooner delete ITN. Banedon (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    And I'm squarely opposed to that. Removing the quality criterion entirely is a joke, surely. This is an encyclopedia, so we have to produce quality items before demonstrating them to our readership. I suppose folks who want to publish crap with no quality control could go to Twitter or Wikinews or some other place, but this is, above all things, an encyclopedia. It's helpful to see some users exposing their reasoning here, so we can apply that to their comments and nominations going forward. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    The problem is that ITN doesn't really encourage making articles good articles. It all happens too quickly. My current example is Bob Jane. He died last week. I nominated the article for RD. His name is known to all Australians, but sadly, it's not going to make it. I have tried my darnedest to get editors who know something about the bloke to improve the article and its sourcing, with very limited success. Just not enough time. So Bob Jane is still sitting there as a poorly referenced article. What did we achieve? HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    Well it's not ITN's purpose to drag crap articles up to a decent standard. If Australian editors really gave a damn about Bob Jane, the article would have been in a decent state before he died. I offer you Kevin Beattie as a recent example. Just take a look at the before and after condition once he was nominated at RD. It works if people give a shit. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    That's quite unhelpful, and close to a personal attack. I am Australian. I give a lot of shit. But I am not the right person to fix that article. If, as you would no doubt say, you were not having a go at me, you are certainly criticising a lot of editors, but they ARE our editors. It's what we have to work with. Our processes need to work with ALL our editors, or at least a majority of them. HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    Nothing like a personal attack, please stop making stuff up. If people aren't interested in expanding articles, well that's their problem. Some articles are updated in time, as per the example I gave, and some are not, as per the article you noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    Do you update articles because you want to be featured on ITN, or because you want to contribute to the project? If the latter, then dangling ITN as a bribe to get people to update articles sounds a little silly. Banedon (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    Which brings us back around the circle. What IS the purpose of ITN? HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    The purpose of ITN is to showcase quality encyclopaedic content about events/people that are currently in the news. If articles get improved as a result of ITN's quality standards then this is a side effect - it is a Good Thing, but only because every improvement to an article is a Good Thing, but improving articles is not the purpose of ITN (for that see WP:GA, WP:FA, WP:DYK (in part), WP:AID, Wikiproject collaborations, etc.). Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    Then the heading is misleading. It should say "The subset of current news items that we just happen to have decent items on". HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    Agree completely with HiLo48. If we want to feature "quality content" on ITN, sure, but make it obvious that ITN is just another method to get people to click on articles we deem are of good quality. Heck, the same can be said of everything on the main page except TFA. Banedon (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    Agreed. But the bar is "quality encylopedic content", as you say. It's a pity Bob Jane didn't make it, but that's the way it is. If nobody did the work to improve his article within the window, then that's just too bad.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

    The page view counter tells me that the project page receives 79 hits each day, on average. That is poor performance in my opinion. ITN appears to be a process that is looking for a purpose, and users. William Harris • (talk) • 23:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

    Why are page view hits on the project page relevant? The project activity is better shown here. Stephen 23:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    Indeed, that's a red herring. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

    If you consider that most WP readers are not editors, RDs do present a rather large problem of perception. A has a blurb, B an RD, and C is not mentioned at all! If someone has the gall to ask, we point them to ITNC, but that's not right exactly. WP:CHOICE would seem to sustain the right of a reader to consume without contributing AND expect the site to behave logically. If the bulk of our readers can't figure out what the hell we're doing, that is a problem. ghost 17:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

    This is an interesting point, but then if you look at the box, there is a predominant "Nominate an article", which should suggest to any sensible reader/editor that this box is not automatically filled in and subject to discussion/consensus. Implicitly, it is stating there is more to what is in this box than just the event happening. --Masem (t) 18:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    I think maybe an "about in the news" (or some similar title) link in the box, which linked to information about ITN and explains what it is and what goes in the box. The lead at Wikipedia:In the news does a very good job of exactly this for blurbs, but doesn't mention RDs. It's very nearly correct anyway regarding RDs but not quite. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    Your "link in the box" needs to highlight that only those news items for which we have decent items will ever be listed. Otherwise, we're misleading the public with the title. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    The first sentence of WP:ITN does exactly that: "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." The last sentence of the lead is also relevant, "Events are added based on a consensus on the ITN candidates page, using two main criteria: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content.". I don't see the title as misleading in the slightest as everything featured is "in the news" it doesn't claim to be the news, let alone all of the news. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    When the 2018 AFL Grand Final was nominated this week, it had clearly been "substantially updated". Almost all the content was brand new. But it was strongly opposed by several editors. Now, they were right to reject it at that stage, because the sourcing was crap. But that's not mentioned in that first sentence, is it? HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    "substantially updated" means "substantially updated with fully referenced encyclopaedic prose." It is not necessary to spell everything out in exact detail in the very first sentence. We assume our readers have more intelligence than a walnut. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    So what are you saying about the intelligence of those enthusiastic editors who added lots of great content, but didn't source it? HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    Absolutely nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    Those of us who have been here for a decade or more may not be the best judges of what an average Wikipedia editor or reader knows and understands about it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    Also, the title is not wrong. The box claims to have stuff that is in the news, it doesn't claim to have everything in the news. That would be quite tricky with five bullet points. For the most part it works correctly, anyway. I have never seen a major news story (election, terrorist incident, natural disaster etc) not make it. It's one of the things that works on Wikipedia that people muck in and build out well cited articles when things are on everyone's minds.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    "...the title is not wrong. The box claims to have stuff that is in the news, it doesn't claim to have everything in the news." Give this man the Pedantry Award of the Day. "I have never seen a major news story...not make it." Perhaps, but that certainly can't be said for RDs. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    That's not really surprising, though. Major news stories have by their very nature plenty of readily available sources. RDs sometimes don't - if a biography is badly sourced it can take a lot of time and effort to get it up to scratch, especially if the person is not famous and obituaries are in short supply. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    "the bulk of our readers can't figure out what the hell we're doing."[citation needed] Stephen 23:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

    Comment I lean strongly towards emphasizing article quality over notability. For one, article quality is objective, while notability is not; so if we focus on article quality, fewer arguments of "systemic bias" (either in favor or against the U.S.) can be made. Also, the purpose of having an ITN box on Wikipedia, instead of having our readers go see what CNN is listing as its biggest headline of the moment, is to highlight quality WP content. For me, we have no obligation to restrict the front page to "very notable" stories (i.e., stories that news sites restrict their front page for). Instead, we have an obligation to restrict the front page to quality WP content. Thirdly, for me, an acceptable notability standard is already included in the article quality requirement; if a recent event does not have an article, or no quality update to an existing article can be written, then the event is not notable enough for ITN. (1/3)

    Therefore, I want to see any event with a quality, standalone article be posted to ITN. Some examples of articles that would've been posted under this standard: Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination, Dismissal of James Comey, as well as all of the mass shootings in the U.S. that we rejected over the past two years (apologies that I only remember the major U.S. stories). Many editors who want to keep notability as a standard for ITN like to bring up that removing it would allow whichever Cardashian's latest viral social media post to be posted. Unless there's a quality article on Cardashian's viral Instagram post of October 2018, it is plain that that's not what I'm advocating for. (2/3)

    Where we would consider notability is for events that do not have a standalone article but do have a quality update to an existing article. The more extensive and well-sourced the update is, the less we need to consider notability. It follows that I would maintain the current guideline to not post any (non-RD) story with less than four sentences' update. (3/3) Davey2116 (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

    "...article quality is objective". Ya reckon? We seem to have an awful lot of argument over it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    A lot of the arguing is by people who think that the quality is unimportant, or that we should just post the story anyway, in the greater good. In and of themselves, the quality instructions don't leave too much room for debate. I agree with some of what Davey says, although I think if you allowed any and all stories purely on the "how much work has gone into them recently" criterion, the systemic bias would bubble to the surface very quickly. I have often lamented that ITN lacks coherent criteria for inclusion, particularly when massive global stories like the inauguration of Trump are sidelined based on unwritten rules and editor preference. But the solution to that isn't to remove discretion and discussion altogether.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment The WP:ITN#Purpose is actually really well thought out, if we'd just stick to that, and not get all triggered up on "significance" or "bias" or "global" or whatever there would be less bickering and MORE quality articles going up on the main page. Oh well. Is there anything to be done here? Can I close this discussion without being dragged into AN/I? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
      Yes! That is a perfect summary of its purpose. If only commentators in the debate actually adhered to point number one, for example on the inauguration day of Donald Trump, we'd have an easier time of it. Fine by me to hat. The conversation isn't really going anywhere.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
      But the points are not ranked. Quality is at least as important as being in the news for example. Point 3 is what requires us to consider significance and bias (so trivial stuff in a single country doesn't consistently fill the box). Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2018 (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.

    Nobel prizes

    So the entirety of ITN is now taken up by Nobel prizes. Are we happy with that, or should we consider merging some of them together to allow some balance? Just asking the question really, perhaps it is fine as is.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

    Happy? Not really, but at this point all combining the prizes would do is drag up an old cricket or golf blurb. They ought to expire off fairly quickly. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
    Don't think they'd lend themselves to an easy merge without dropping their titles or the recipient names, or what they won it for, all of which seems fundamentally required. Best bet is to get some more nominations in the pipeline to knock them all off. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
    Maybe I need to go out there and do something newsworthy this afternoon, and then write the article about it afterwards...  — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
    Be mindful of WP:COI if you do. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
    A burst of Nobel prize stories happens every year. It's purely because the Nobel prizes, which are each independently worth a blurb, are announced on six successive weekdays. It's not a problem and doesn't require fixing. Other blurbs will come along soon enough. Modest Genius talk 16:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

    (Closed) Kavanaugh

    This conversation has done its time and is going nowhere. We'll see each other again next time the debate rears its head I'm sure.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2018 (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.

    Pulling Kavanaugh's confirmation from ITN was a gross violation of good judgment, showing that amateurs cannot be expected to deal responsibly with complex editorial issues. Gauche and embarrassing. – Sca (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

    • I'm going to need specific explanations for every single one of your points as none are self-evident. It was pulled because there was not a consensus in favour of its posting at the time it was posted, nor at the time it was pulled. This is normal whenever an item is posted without consensus or when consensus changes after posting and unrelated to this specific nomination so your first point is factually wrong. It's unclear how the rest of your points would follow from this even if it was true (which it isn't). Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • As someone who would probably have supported it - even if weakly - if I'd had a chance to vote, I don't see anything wrong here. The original posting was far too premature (<3 hours?!), was posted by someone who'd already voted Support, and had 15-8 Support at that point (on the boundaries of consensus, but nowhere near an obvious SNOW close, which is what Amakaru effectively did). By the time it was pulled, the voting was pretty much 50-50. So the pull was absolutely correct at that point, too. By the time the nomination was closed, it was 22-21. Something with 21 Opposes probably isn't going to get posted whatever happens at that point. Furthermore, it was opened late on a Saturday evening for much of Europe, and closed fairly early morning; I'm betting that a lot of people (certainly including me) never saw it at all. Oh, and "amateurs" ... really? Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I was going to post about this earlier, and decided not to bother, as there's clearly not much that can be done about it, but Sca is absolutely right. The purpose of ITN, as set out in black and white on the project page, is to point readers to pages on the Wiki because a topic is in the news. The Kavanaugh confirmation is unquestionably in the news. Top headlines. Not just in the US but in the UK, France, Australia and other countries too. And we have a well-written and up to date article on the topic, which hasn't been posted in ITN yet. These are objective facts. And there is little doubt that readers may wish to see that article, so we are doing them a disservice, as well as the editors who have spent time writing that article, by not Including it.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
      Except we also do not deal in sensationalist news, that's why ITN is not a newsticker. This is a story that has been pumped up by the 24/7 news cycle that needs to fill the airspace, and the media's disapproval of Trump and anyone associated with him. We have to be aware of why some topics get extra special attention despite not having no immediate long-term consequence. --Masem (t) 16:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
      If this is just "sensationalist" news, why was it on the front page of the BBC and other mainstream respected news outlets worldwide? As I said above, the story is a clear match for the "purpose of ITN", it ticks all the boxes. Whereas I'm not sure which part of the page your Oppose is based on. If you want to change the purpose of ITN to exclude certain big stories even if they have a quality article, you should start an RFC and gather consensus for that.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
      We've already determined that just because a story is covered predominately internationally doesn't mean anything for ITN. That's part of "not a news ticker". Much of what we post to ITN are not front page stories, but instead topics that known long-term importance. --Masem (t) 18:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The pulling is reasonable, though the SNOW close is not; I'm unsure whether it's worth escalating this (probably to ANI, which would be equally unproductive). I will remember this the next time some editors talk about The Boat Race. This WaPo article explains why this is different than most other countries. Similarly, a change in the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be more likely to be posted than a change in the US Secretary of the Treasury. Those comments comparing this to the Kardashians or the Supreme Court of the Marshall Islands are so far from reasonable they should be disregarded in assessing consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
      I don’t see the analogy between this and a global sporting event, but in any case The Boat Race is ITNR so we don’t have to have these drawn out and wasteful debates. Oh, and I would definitely oppose a change in chancellor of the exchequer, once again just local politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
      Speaking as a British editor I would also oppose a change of chancellor of the exchequer for exactly the same reason as I opposed this nomination: Local politics. Even if one or both were accused of serious crimes I would still oppose: per WP:BLP we post convictions not accusations. This is also why I will opposed almost every change in a political position below head of state or government - it's just local politics. None of this is relevant to why this nomination was pulled though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment we have discussed a minimum waiting for post/close in the past [2] [3] and it's gone nowhere -- 3 hours or 3 days is irrelevant. If you feel otherwise, open an RFC. The WP:ITN#Purpose of ITN is clear -- all this screaming about "bias" or "local politics" or "sensationalist" or whatever else those are all made up !rules. If you want to codify them, open an RFC. The item, is "in the news" with a quality article, it's unfortunate that it was pulled. @331dot: was right to close it though, thanks buddy. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
      • The waiting period is irrelevant - nothing should be posted when there is no consensus to do so, and it should never be posted by someone who has expressed an opinion unless the consensus is overwhelming. 15-8 with non-trivial arguments made on both sides is not consensus let alone overwhelming consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Except a good number of people have exclaimed "in three hours" and I'm just pointing out that consideration has been discussed and dismissed. --LaserLegs (talk)
          • If we are talking either an RD or an ITNR entry, and the terms of SNOW clearly apply, posting/closing in a short amount of time applies. (I posted the death of S. Hawkings within a few hours, for example). Other news topics, admins should be much more careful. A SNOW action better be the equivalent of a blizzard with no doubt to support the action. If there were disagreements, as there was with this nom, then yes, more time should be given for better consensus to develop. --Masem (t) 17:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Question anything else to be done here? I don't see a specific proposal or call to action, just a continuation of an acrimonious debate at ITN/C. Can I close this without being dragged up to AN/I? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
      This depends a bit on whether we can agree that there's a discrepancy between the guidelines and the actual practice at ITNC. According to me, a literal reading of the "Purpose" section at WP:ITN leaves no room for doubt that this story should have been posted. Whereas it's clear that people here, such as Masem, think there's precedence and a longstanding tradition that this sort of story is not posted. If we could agree that there is a discrepancy, then there might be some concrete steps we could take to address that, either by updating the guidelines through RFC, or by amending the way we think about stories. Masem and LaserLegs, what do you think, am I making any sense? If not, how would you interpret the Purpose section?  — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
      The section on "significance" lets people go off the rails and invent their own rules -- unless it's overhauled I'm afraid we'll continue to see vicious america-bashing. Just wait till the next school shooting, you can't imagine the hateful garbage spewed about the US when that happens. The one thing that holds this whole ridiculous mess together is "consensus" no matter how pro-europe, pro-sport, pro-male and pro-disaster that consensus tends to be. I really think it's time to close this. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
      One of the things we have to do is recognize when the argument is raised "this is front page news everywhere in the world" of exactly why a story may be like that, and ask if the same type of news story happened anywhere else, would it get similar coverage. US politics is one of the most hyped areas in this regard, moreso with Trump as president. There was no question that Kavanague's nomination would be contentious, but it was even more magnified in the news with the accusations from his past. All that points to a topic that is impossible to avoid in the media, so the question becomes: would we post the appointment of any other highest-court justice in any other part of the world, much less a less-contentious SCOTUS candidate? And that answer is pretty much no. So it makes no sense to "reward" the sensationalism in the media here. Then atop than, when the arguments for posting the ITNC were "but the story is that he was approved despite the accusations", that makes it even worse because that's a POV. Congress/FBI looked into it, didn't find anything to impact the legal process related to his appointment, and went through with it. To say that we have to post the ITN because there were these accusations makes it look like WP disapproved of the appointment, which of course we cannot say at all. It may have been the top news story for 2+ weeks, but in the end, it was a lot of hot air of the media expressing their strong discontent with the person. That's the core of sensationalist journalism. --Masem (t) 15:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    Something doesn't feel right here; we are not a news outlet, whether or not a story should have been posted is irrelevant. More emphasis should be on the article quality and coverage, and in my opinion the article was not updated sufficiently to reflect anything of encyclopedic value for the significance of this event. Alex Shih (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Well if that's the case then certainly that's a good reason not to post, there's less value in showcasing it. I don't remember many of the Oppose votes opposing on quality though. Most were questioning the merits of the story itself.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • That was one of the worst and most pathetic displays of collaboration I have ever seen on ITN. If an RFC is going to be what's needed to stop this sort of juvenile bickering from repeating in the future (on both sides, I must say) then that's what needs to happen. Otherwise, perhaps a trip to ANI for some specific problem editors? WaltCip (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    this one was pretty bad too. People go completely crazy fighting "bias" when it's a US-centric story, and are curiously silent the rest of the time. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    The shutdown was definitely one of our worst, and basically was a vocal contingent of editors giving the middle finger to ITN policy. Anyway, we shouldn't be posting then pulling stories because of some late outcry against U.S.-centrism.--WaltCip (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    The simplest and best way to avoid doing that is simply to not post stories that don't have consensus. It's worth noting that my rationale (and at least some others in opposition) was unrelated to US centrism and entirely related to domestic politics (regardless of country) not meeting the significance criterion. If you want ITN to become a news ticker then gain consensus for it first. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    So if you could just tell me where the significance criterion stipulates excluding "domestic politics" or how this wasn't "domestic politics" that'd be swell. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    A prominent former vice-president getting imprisoned for corruption is not the same thing at all as a routine political appointment. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) In most venues, though, like AfD and RM, consensus is viewed through the lens of some sort of identifiable policy and guidelines. ITN though, is basically a free for all where everybody's preconceptions and prejudices are treated equally. The significance criterion is basically completely arbitrary and clearly at odds with the stated purpose of this section, which is to "showcase articles related to things that are in the news". It would be far better IMHO, and in line with neutrality and OR policies elsewhere, if we used reliable sources as our benchmark for significance rather than relying on a hodgepodge of editor opinions.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    If we used the amount of coverage in reliable sources as our guide we would post celebrities getting in Twitter storms but not a general election in Sri Lanka. That would make us a newspaper, which we explicitly are not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    Celebrities getting into twitter storms would not be top headlines in the NYT, BBC, Guardian and Le Monde all at the same time. And Sri Lanka can be covered either way, it's not those stories that attract the acrimonious debate. I'm not advocating prominence in RS as a necessary condition for inclusion, simply as a sufficient condition. That means that if it is met, we post almost automatically, unless there are overwhelmingly good reasons not to. There aren't actually as many of these stories as you might think, and I don't think it would significantly change the way ITN is, simply that reader-interest stories such as Trump's inauguration, the wedding of Harry and Meghan, and the confirmation of Kavanaugh, would be included instead of excluded.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    What if we used both? You could post all the obscure architecture and literature prizes you want, but, yes, if someone wrote and quality update to a celebrity twitter storm AND that twitter storm was "in the news" we'd post that too. So what? So friggin what? I'm so sick and tired of that argument, as if somehow the world would end if we posted a Kardashian divorcing a rapper. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    it's a good point. If the kardashian thing is significantly in the news (and not just tabloid) and we have an article on it, then chances are readers would appreciate a link to the article. Common sense really, and we could spend time building an encyclopedia instead of bickering endlessly.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    Not really, that's the point of WikiNews or WikiTRIBUNE, to report news items. If, of course, you're advocating that ITN becomes a ticker where we publicise everything that goes on in the WP:TOP25, that's a different thing and if you're serious, then RFC for it, and if you're not, stop even going there. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    WikiNews and WikiTribune are for original content, we're referring to the ITN Main Page feature of the English Wikipedia which requires content be cited to reliable, 3rd party sources. Not really sure why you're bringing them up. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    Because you're advocating us using the WP:TOP25 to publish news stories on Wikipedia. That's what news outlets are for, not ITN. You already know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    I take my cues from WP:ITN#Purpose, not WP:TOP25. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    It's not a question of TOP25 or news tickers, it's a question of putting our prejudices aside and mentioning things that are actually in the news and have decent articles, so that people can get there. If major papers in multiple countries are headlining a particular story then chances are it's in the news and something readers will look for. We may not like that, we may wish they had more stories on chess tournaments and the goings on in Ecuador, (and of course have the discretion to include those too), but to omit major things like Kavanaugh just looks a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I am a UK editor, and I work on African topics a lot, so I'm well aware of systemic bias but the global interest in this story means it's more systemically biased to omit it than to include it.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    somehow the world would end if we posted a Kardashian divorcing a rapper - no, but ITN would fail in its encyclopedic content values. If you want to work on WP:TOP25, be my guest, but that's not what we're going to publish at ITN. If you want to work at Wikinews, be my guest, but that's not what we're going to publish at ITN. Ditto, see WikiTRIBUNE. ITN is rooted in encyclopedic value, and the garbage at WP:TOP25 isn't what it's about. Feel free to move all your efforts to those news tickers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2018 (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.

    Since today the "Continue reading" link at the page bottom has disappeared. Now one who is reading the main page cannot go to Portal:Current events. Can anyone reactivate the link?-- 3knolls (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

    When there are ongoing items, "Ongoing" then links to Portal:Current events and the "continue reading" is automatically removed (diff). Best, SpencerT•C 19:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

    Caballé

    I wouldn't mind credit for referencing and expanding Montserrat Caballé. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

    Oh, sorry, this is probably my fault. I see someone's already posted the ITN recognition, but I've sent you a barnstar as well because you certainly deserve it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

    Same for Berthold Leibinger, who is on the Main page - thank you! - but no mention on his talk even, nor mine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

    Ask and ye shall receive. --Jayron32 16:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you, I asked and received more than I asked for, but he can't ask any more, so I ask again for something added to his talk. He received a talk page header which seems unneeded ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
     Done. --Jayron32 16:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_68&oldid=935335129"