Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40→Archive 45

PA Football Sex Scandal

Does anyone else think this news story should not warrant any attention at all on the front page? It is a completely insignificant news story outside the US, where one could not care less about American College Football. ProfNax (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. No one. Certainly not the people who voted against it at WP:ITN/C. I simply do not understand the effort that goes into whining about what takes up 5% of the front page. Get over and get on your lives. --Golbez (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It's been an interesting exercise to watch and be part of. As a non-American I know that the sport/university connection in the USA is very different from elsewhere in the world, but I'll admit to not understanding that situation well. I suspect most other non-Americans are in the same boat as me. In that thread, the American supporters of the proposal seemed to not perceive nor understand that we foreigners need to be told a little more than "this IS important". We needed to be told why. I suspect it is important, but because nothing like it could occur outside the USA, we just don't get it. Those pushing the case needed to actually argue it from a lower base of assuming no knowledge among the readers, not from the base of "we all already know this is important". HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I put the effort in for the 'betterment' of Wikipeida Mr Golbez. If that is insignificant to you, why are you here (on this discussion page)? Regardless, I'll be sure to submit the next Norwegian University League Golf scandal for headline status. ProfNax (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"why are you here?" A desire to see things get better, combined with boredom and having a bad day. I assure you, what you do on ITN is far less significant to my life than Penn State appearing on ITN is to yours. --Golbez (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem is: the story affects the university itself (see how many people outside the athletic department got fired as well including the President). If the football angle wasn't there, this would be a significant story for ITN, but surprisingly probably would have less coverage in US papers (not insignificant) since scandals like this are a dime a dozen it seems. The problem is that news overall has focused on the fact that it was an incident with the football department and included a coach of legendary status. Now the story has mutated from one that affected a university to one that affected a legendary coach and a predominate collegiate athletic team, meaning that the weight of sports coverage is going to make this seem a lot more significant as a US news story, but again, under it all is the college scandal too that is almost being forgotten. In ITN, however, it is possible to realign the news story to the actual important part, that it was something that affected the whole college including the athletic department, and thus consider the story that way. Now, whether that still makes it appropriate for ITN, that's a different question, but it is clear that just because it seems like a story about american college football doesn't invalidate it for ITN, it just needed to be presented in a different light. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I think what people need to realize is this is not just some sports story on ESPN and in Sports Illustrated mainly of interest to hard-core football fans. If it were, I would understand the objections. But this was the biggest story across the US national media. As a rule, the major TV networks hardly ever do sports stories on their nightly news broadcasts, let alone lead their broadcasts with them. All three of them spent the first 5 minutes or more on the story. (NBC led off their newscast with the story again tonight.) I'm sure it's very hard for people overseas to understand why such a big deal is made out of a college football coach. Maybe it's silly that Americans care so much about it. But when the "serious" media in America universally treat it as a big story, I think we should assume it is a significant news event. If you want to understand why Paterno is such a big deal, you can start with this article from the New York Times headlined "Paterno, the King of Pennsylvania, Until Now." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
So basically, you seem to be suggesting that anything which is the top news story in one extra-special country on a given day should automatically be considered ITN_worthy? 87.114.206.187 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This isn't just a run of the mill scandal. It caused the president of the second largest university in the united states to be fired. The board didn't allow him to resign like with most scandals, they fired him and JoPa. I HATE college football but I still heard about this story and its growing every day. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be remarkable inflation concerning how big this university is. Earlier today, I saw it described as the tenth biggest university in the United States. Do you have any sources for your claim, or is the remarkable expansion of Penn State the sole factor that makes this piddling, parochial story ITN-worthy? 87.114.206.187 (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I can see that this event is important to Americans, but can Americans see that, at first glance, non-Americans cannot comprehend why? No other country has this massive connection between a popular sport and universities, that even this thread is helping me to learn more about. You have to recognise cultural differences here, AND explain it properly to us ignorant foreigners. At the same time as pointing out how big an event this is, you really have to also explain the connection between universities and sport, otherwise it makes no sense to us mere mortals. The rest of the world doesn't do things that way. HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately we can never agree because the criteria for ITN is insubstantial. From my point of view, this story seems to be tabloid journalism regardless of its significance to the American mainstream media, and it also seems to conform to systematic bias due to the large number of American users. However, neither of these things are specified as criterion on the ITN page, so I have nothing to stand on. ProfNax (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make is to subtract out anything dealing with football (which is tainting the story and significance) to get to the core of the story: At least four ranked officials (including the president) of PennState were unceremoniously fired by the reagents over the scandal. Now, that's what I would consider as the starting point for determining whether this is an ITN story or not. PennState is a major research institution and educational facility; according to the Wiki article, it falls around 45th in US schools, 43rd in internationals, so it's not a insignificant school (and yes, it accepts international students and has worldwide connections with it research). But again, we are also taking about something that likely won't have immediate impact on the students or staff of the academic side, so it could be argued that it is simply tabloid journalism.
My caution is that if the football side of the story is the focus, it makes it considerable a worse case for including in ITN: a USian sport, and at the amateur league level at that, only highlighted due to the emphasis college sports gets in the US. I'm sure this hasn't been the only cases of a story that could be taken from multiple angles to have a one angle seem completely inappropriate for ITN while the other, less reported side is a very strong candidate. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Masem, Paterno is what makes this a huge North America-wide news story. Spanier was little-known outside of State College or the world of academic administration. Joe Paterno is one of the most-recognizable faces in America. If football wasn't involved, it would still be a big story, but more of a statewide one than a national one. Maybe that's not the way society should work, but it is. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
You're mistaken: if no one in the athletic department was involved but still resulted in the president being unceremoniously fired among other people at a major international research institution, it would be international news - maybe not ITN worthy, but certainly a wider impact in that consideration than the outing of the JoePa, which I do agree has much more significance but limited to American borders. Maybe its the point that there's two facets that come into play; its those dismissing the issue as "oh, its only college football in the US" are missing the lesser but wider-reaching story. --MASEM (t) 07:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

HiLo, I really appreciate your efforts to understand this quirk of American culture. The problem is, the format of ITN candidacy discussions is not really one conducive to explaining these kind of things in depth. Similarly, as an American, I don't really understand why Eurovision is considered a big deal, but I'm not going to "get it" during an ITN discussion. What I can get is evidence that a lot of people care about the competition and that it's considered a "big deal" by British and other European media. I don't know if anyone can really "get" how huge of a public figure Paterno is without living in the country. But the fact that this was all over the "serious" media such as CNN, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, should be evidence that it meets the ITN criterion of not being trivial. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This ruckus is bloody amusing. Where were you guys when the Gaelic football final was posted, laughingly described as "top level of championship in multi-national sport"? Ain't it amusing that some who whined were the same people who said that basketball, a "ridiculous game," is "a non-story about a minority sport." Jolly good! Like come on, if you described basketball as a minor sport, what weight will your opinion have on discussions such as this one? –HTD 09:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Short answer - No, it should not be on the front page This entire farce could have been avoided very quickly had our American cousins fathomed out the awkward truth about the story - it's not notable, it's not quite the scandal they think it is, and it certainly does not equate to the principle figurehead of a large sports club involved in the event. The team is an amateur college club, like a non-league football team in the UK. What we got was over eight thousand words (8,000!) on whether the story should have been included. Wikipedia are its very worst. Now we're going to have it all again with the Poker 'game' nomination, another non-notable event blown up out of all proportion. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • It belongs on the front page because I said so. This has more meaning than you may think. (Incidentally, why the disdain towards amateur sports? Are you saying Olympics of a few decades ago are less notable that current ones because they were all amateurs?) --Golbez (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
      • "It belongs on the front page because I said so" means nothing. And the issue here is whether the story is notable (and in the context of world events, it is not), whether the sports team is notable (and outside the USA, they ain't). This story should NOT be on the front page. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Sure it means something. It means, were I around, I could have put it up on ITN without reading 90% of the arguments, and it would have likely stayed, without waiting for everyone to put in their two cents about lol America/lol non-Americans. I'm not sure why it matters if it's not notable outside the USA; we put up plenty of things that are of explicit interest to people of only one country or region, yet are newsworthy updates to the encyclopedia. That's what we're here for, right? Newsworthy updates? It's not a ticker, and our information on this case is very extensive, so it would make sense to pimp it on the front page. That's what ITN is for, most people seem to have forgotten. --Golbez (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Well established notability. The article is in good shape. Calling this a 'tabloid' story is simply erroneous.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

  • You may be right, but to someone without an understanding of the connection between sport and American universities, it looks like a short impact, tabloid story. And 95% of the world has no understanding of that connection. So, even if you're right, to most of the world this still LOOKS like a dumb thing to put on the main page. And you cannot address this by simply telling people "It just IS important". HiLo48 (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Most of what ends up in ITN is of short-range impact, and without full understanding of the fundamentals, may not seem apparent to all readers. The point of ITN should be to highlight large-enough scale events on articles that have been improved but could use further improvement as to draw editors to these articles to help expand it. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Bot credits

Recently, I was starting to think if we could use a bot to update the talkpages of the articles that make it to ITN and give a credit to people who nominate them. I never give credits manually but occasionally some people ask whether they could get one so this may be an easy solution. Something similar like in DYK. Now that we have all the information already in the ITN nomination box, it should be relatively easy to implement. Anyone has a sufficient expertease on this? --Tone 13:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: 5% rule

I propose the following for the criteria page:

Generally speaking, if an item is probably of interest to at least 5% of likely English Wikipedia users, it should not be rejected on grounds of reader disinterest. This does not mean than all items that meet that threshold should be posted. Items can still be rejected because of an incomplete article, lack of media coverage, lack of timeliness, triviality or other factors. It also does not mean that all items that do not meet the threshold should be rejected. Editors can also consider whether a particular subject or geographic area has been overrepresented in ITN.

This might help eliminate some of the same old arguments on the candidates page. If people think 5% is not a good number, please suggest another. Again, we're talking general guidelines here, not a hard and fast rule. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Who determines what is of interest? I can see how this would get abused: a story happens in the States so automatically every American is deemed to be interested in it, nicely pushing the story well above the threshold regardless of how many Americans actually are interested in it. If there is some accurate and indisputable method of determining this then possibly, but I don't see how that would work in practice. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC).
I agree with Crispmuncher that such an approach is unfeasible. We'd end up having essentially the same debates that we do now, with the focus shifted to an arbitrary number (making them more complicated and difficult to resolve). —David Levy 02:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, to use the current debate as an example, surveys of Americans have found that about 25% are college football fans. We know that about 45% of the users are American. So we can assume that roughly 11% of our readers are college football fans. I'm guessing it's higher, since Wikipedia seems to skew to males and some Canadian readers would be interested. That does not mean that all college football stories should go up by any means. But it indicates that college football is not so obscure as to be crufty. (So I'm not accused of bringing this up because of the current debate, let's say any new "rule" would not to into effect until after this debate is over.) Obviously, it would be a rough guess for most things. But I think we do need a flexible general guideline to indicate what type of item can be rejected due to a lack of reader interest. Maybe a particular number is not the right idea. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
That is still a stretch: it assumes that all Americans who follow college football in any form are interested in this story. How many follow their alma mater, local, or other preferred team and that is it? How many of those "followers" are wives, girlfriends or children dragged along to a game, or are otherwise kept abreast of events without a genuine interest? The point is that there's still a lot of block counting going on even with that breakdown, which is probably better than we could get on many stories. It only hints at the problems and debates this could cause if it was adopted as a guideline. I don't see that this is going to help settle discussions in any way, it is just going to move them to a more abstract and speculative measure. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC).
No. Too much like voting. It means that items about the most popular things will be posted, rather than genuinely newsworthy items. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
In fairness, the proposed criterion wouldn't supersede any of the others; it's merely intended to set a specific numerical cutoff on the "interest" factor. (In other words, it would apply strictly to the question of whether an item should be omitted on the basis of insufficient interest, not to any other concerns that might justify its exclusion.) I agree, however, that this is a bad idea. —David Levy 21:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Mwalcoff's proposal deciphered: "Generally speaking, if an item is probably of interest to Americans, it should not be rejected, because Americans are more numerous and shout loudest. American is the default setting on Wikipedia, so considerations of neutrality or objectivity should be overridden when Americans think something is important. This does not mean than all items that interest Americans should be posted – just considerably more than would be posted if the items concerned other countries." 87.114.206.187 (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If you aren't willing to assume good faith on Mwalcoff's part, can you at least refrain from tarring all Americans with the same brush? I'm an American, and I oppose this idea. —David Levy 21:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Christ, you people whine a lot. I think dithering over whether something is "important" enough for ITN is right up there with arguing what the best Wikiprojects are for an article. In my day, when an admin wanted to make an update, he did it. He didn't have to manually stimulate a half dozen people until one complained that it wasn't of interest to enough people, or one complained that it was of interest to too many but they were in one particular country. Just fucking do it, and stop wasting everyone's time. We aren't a democracy, stop enforcing institutions that give the false image that it is. --Golbez (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That Wikipedia isn't a democracy means that we don't base most decisions (including what to post in ITN) on majority votes. It doesn't mean that Wikipedia is an oligarchy in which administrators compose an elite class of decision-makers. —David Levy 21:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It means you can ignore all rules when people are whining about whether or not a story is bigger than the United States, or smaller than Fiji. Just Post It and ignore the whining behind the voting. It's simple. I'd do it right now if something warranted it. We may not be an oligarchy, but some of us are part of a no-bullshit-archy. If there's too much bullshit, we'll just do it and tell everyone else to shut up. --Golbez (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The concept of setting aside "bullshit" (as you label it) falls under what I wrote above (that we don't base most decisions on majority votes). This is very different from the concept of administrators ignoring discussions (with or without telling people to "shut up") and doing whatever they feel like doing.
Even when administrators were permitted to update ITN as they saw fit (which often resulted in its misuse as a news ticker), their decisions always were subject to the community's scrutiny. —David Levy 22:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
All of our actions are subject to scrutiny. I'm simply saying, a little more action and a little less pandering would probably quiet down a large portion of the scrutiny that's here to whine solely about "This is too [non-]US centric!" Ignore the whiners and they will go away. That's all I'm suggesting. And in this process, the only way to ignore them is to preempt them. --Golbez (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a big unanswered policy question on ITN: If an item meets all of the other ITN criteria, and it is of interest to a significant number of English Wikipedia readers, but those readers are overwhelmingly the U.S. and Canada, should it be posted? A while back I think I did an RFC on this and hardly anyone noticed. If we answer this question definitively, it will go a long way toward eliminating these arguments we have so often when American items are suggested. My argument has always been that if we can post items predominantly of interest to the minority of readers who care about poetry or space probes or marathons, we can post items predominantly of interest to Americans (or Britons, or Canadians, or Australians). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There are enough people to comment on ITN/C to approve pertinent news without an additional rule. If consensus is not reached, or leans oppose, it's not going to be posted. In my opinion if there is bias, it's toward America since that's where most contributors originate. Another rule is not necessary and would not be enforced. Mamyles (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the biggest bias is against science stories, religious persecution, technological innovations, important publications by various sources, global climate change, important scientific studies, energy generation, natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, great droughts, heat waves, cold waves, asteroid impact probabilities, close asteroid fly-bys, and pestilences of various sorts) and political speeches, among others. The Wiki-!politik has increased exponentially in order to focus solely upon the bare wars, major shortcomings and scandals of the news media, ever since the Arbitration Declaration of Unanimous Decision Upon the Rights and Inconveniences Relevant to Global Climate Change Topics and Associated Experiential Publications, Charter Public Sector 2009 c.v. 13Ja,14O\-010 Motion of Expediated Consequences and Motions § 10102.012 RE-AGW Hypothesis, discussed late 2009 and passed late 2010. ~AH1 (discuss!) 18:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I was just making the point that the history and implications of such a decision are quite obscure. ~AH1 (discuss!) 03:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"If an item meets all of the other ITN criteria"... what is the criteria?

WP:ITN#Criteria mentions nothing on what an ITN blurb is. It does tell you what minority topics are, and what recurring events are, but it doesn't tell you what an is ITN blurb. –HTD 07:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one here who believes that the attention span of the average Wikipedian toward creating articles, dealing with other users and warding off news fatigue, has declined exponentially in the past few years? Consider the above post, #Pine Island Bay, which has seen no responses, when in fact the post was addressing the very fact that there were no responses to my other post. I also have no idea why there is such a systemic bias against US/Canada – were there not such a bias, I suspect that the Keystone XL pipeline story, regarding its cancellation, would have long been posted – there is yet another detectable bias, one against the cancellation of projects, favouring instead the opening of new pipelines, for example the Nord Stream.
An ITN blurb is whatever any user nominates and is approved, as in practice this has always been the way ITN worked. While quantifying stories objectively seems an excellent idea on the surface, things become increasingly problematic when we realize at a crawling pace that such a definition is impossible for non-geographically-limited topics. ~AH1 (discuss!) 14:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Was the Keystone one even nominated? Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
That's the problem. ~AH1 (discuss!) 18:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

New ITN or Main page section suggestion (do not disscus the occupy movement here)

  • Suggestion, A new section be created for "hot topics" with links to on going events like the olyimpics, nobel peace prizes, arab spring and occupy movement. The criteria could be different then ITN; more dependent on the amount of buzz then the merits of the news itself. The section would not have blurbs, just links. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I am concerned by this. Wikipedia is not a primary source for information. Won't this be directing people to the incorrect perception of Wikipedia as some kind of "Occupy hangout"? I notice that bending the rules to fit the "movement"'s whims was not considered during the Arab Spring, which had at least clear aims and leadership. This "movement" should not be the tail wagging the dog. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
We can't (and shouldn't) avoid a lot of material appearing on Wikipedia regarding hot topics in the media, but we can avoid ITN becoming the latest news fad blog. I've seen several cases of long term events getting multiple submissions to ITN that deserve some attention, but threaten to monopolize ITN if we try to present short blurbs on each development. This is solved with stickies, but I notice we've been very conservative about putting them up. Haveing a box for them would encourage putting them up and keeping them up.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are the characteristics of the section we should consider: (Add your own)

  • Should it be a part of ITN or a stand alone section of the main page.
If it is part of ITN then it ends up on ever page that features ITN and make the ITN box bigger. As a separate section designed to add to the box, people could have the option of not showing it on thier pages.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • How many items should be allowed in the new section.
It could be limited to one to two lines or 5 to 10 items, etc.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • We already have a working mechanism for stickying topics when they are determined significant enough. Last time an item was stickied there were no complaints about its look or process. As for making them just links, I prefer a blurb so it can also briefly highlight developments. Mamyles (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment, and I can't emphasize this enough, as with other items at ITN, the stickied items (whatever they may be) should have guaranteed updates while they're stickied. –HTD 05:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Many controversial topics are not well-updated due to editing "frictions". The dispute resolution process for political articles really does not work that well, making dedicated editors more likely to focus on low-profile topics. I think this is a problem of Wikipedia in general and not just of ITN. JimSukwutput 07:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose having seen explanation This is merely trying to re-invent the "Sticky" wheel. If proper procedures are followed, then ITN/C allows people to nominate any wide-ranging event such as the many detailed here and elsewhere. Creating a new system on the back of the Occupy "movement" (even if you envisage the new system not including that particular news event) looks highly dubious.doktorb wordsdeeds 07:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"Stale" motion

I would like to move that the existing nomination over on ITN/C which prompted this discussion is marked as 'Stale'. There has been no constructive edits to the discussion in some days, whilst the nomination itself deals with an event now in the past and no longer a current concern. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This comment has nothing to do with the above section, so I'm making it a section in its own right. That the heading makes no sense now I've taken it our of context does not bother me in the slightest. That is Doktorbuk's problem. It should please him. His goal seems to be creating them. HiLo48 (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Doktorbuk, you are quite possibly the ONLY person who has failed to realise that the discussion started by HiLo48 in the above section doesn't actually have anything to do with the Occupy movement that you detest so much, but is actually about how ITN can better deal with those epic long-running news stories (such as the Syrian civil war, European debt crisis, the protest Occupy movement, the federal deficit crisis in the USA which is about to hit media/ITN like a hammer) which would be (and are being) overlooked because of opposition on notability grounds to the individual milestones in those important news stories. Pay attention and stop wasting our time. Deterence Talk 21:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The debate above is headed "the Occupy protests" so there goes that part of your argument. Each issue you mention is nominated and discussed at ITN/C, and as you have witnessed, almost all of them are opposed and go stale after detailed and thorough debate. You seem to be angry that your own POV is not pushed onto the front page. You are, as I have noticed about the "movement" generally, just wanting to claim a prize of an issue on the front page at the cost of Wikipedia's reputation. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Each issue you have mentioned - the Occupy "movement", the banking crisis, the European debt crisis - has been discussed on a case by case basis in ITN/C. This debate has received very little input and shows no signs of gaining wider support. ITN/C is the right and proper place for these discussions. Occupy should not be the Trojan Horse used for giving "special treatment" to peoples individual prejudices. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have decided. Doktorbuk must be as thick as a brick. I'm sorry if that is pushing the official limits of niceness here, but he apparently fails completely to comprehend the point of the above thread. Either that, or he is pushing a political agenda. And we all know the rules on that. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it appalling that the terms "brain dead" and "thick as a brick" have been used in a debate as though they do not fall foul of WP:Civil and other restrictions on editorial co-operation. I think my view has been made very clear - I am suspicious about the motives of editors who are trying to sidestep the usual regulations to make a special case for events which have, by consensus, been roundly rejected as important enough for In The News inclusion. That my arguments have been treated to insults says a lot more about those pushing their own POV than it does me! I have no politics here. You who use insults and fail to debate the issues need to consider whether your are frustrated for all the wrong reasons. At the core of this is "Occupy" and the hunger to give it a special treatment around here (to make Wikipedia a form of "Occupy hangout" as I suggested earlier. Occupy is not the Arab Spring, and Wikipedia is not a branch of the 99% "movement". doktorb wordsdeeds 22:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Let's look at the sequence here, I said "We have a problem because we have a lot of somewhat interconnected activities forming a global movement, where none of the individual events is significant on it's own". Doktorbuk says "No, you can't do that. None of the individual events is significant on it's own." I say "You have missed the point. We want to look at the larger movement." Doktorbuk says "None of the individual events is significant on it's own." We all say "We want to look at the larger movement." Doktorbuk says "None of the individual events is significant on it's own." We all say "We want to look at the larger movement." Doktorbuk says "None of the individual events is significant on it's own." We all say "We want to look at the larger movement." Doktorbuk says "None of the individual events is significant on it's own."
Hmmmmm. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That pretty-much sums up the thread from where I'm sitting. There's just no reasoning with a guy who is still sitting on the starting line of the wrong race and facing the wrong direction. Deterence Talk 06:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
There is little reasoning with editors who are clearly not neutral and are all but demanding special treatment is given to one of their hobby horses. As I have said, the debate here might be claimed to be wide, but it is Occupy which is on your mind. And I have also said here, we already have a mechanism for highlighting particularly notable events. Reinventing that wheel in the aftermath of Occupy might be worth exploring but doing so because of Occupy seems like circumnavigating the rules. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, so you have no real objection to the suggestion that HiLo48 has been making for 2 days. You're just embarking on this fanatical opposition to even considering his concerns because you're worried a solution might allow the Occupy protests to see the light of day and be mentioned, (in other words, you're pushing a POV agenda), and you think HiLo48 is motivated by a personal political agenda in making his suggestion, (in other words, you're accusing him of extreme bad faith and pushing a POV agenda). Well, at least you now have some vague idea about what the issue is, even if it did take you two whole days to catch up with the rest of us. Deterence Talk 08:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • To be accused of pushing a POV agenda by someone whose recent contributions do that (and more) with rather uncivil language is beyond satire. I support the existing way that we can draw attention to certain events under specific criteria. This debate (which is headlined "Occupy protests") has clearly been started after a logjam over on ITN/C. I have not accused HiLo48 of bad faith. You have accused me of being, amongst other things, "brain dead" and "coming from a Special Ed school". I think neutral observers can make up their own mind on who is pushing what. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The extreme irony being, I'm an extreme right-wing pro-Capitalist Libertarian who treats Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead like his personal bible and objects to 90% (or more, as they get a bit nuttier every day) of the Occupy agenda. If I'm pushing my personal political agenda, I'm doing a bloody crap job of it. Deterence Talk 08:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Linking countries

Okay, can we come to a consensus on this? Originally, we linked nearly every country that appeared on ITN. After some complaints about overlinking, it turned into not linking any countries. Recently, I thought it was "be consistent". But even though nearly every country on ITN was linked, someone delinked every one, so it appears to still be "don't link any countries". Honestly, I don't think any of these approaches is okay, and it's fine to have some countries linked while others are not. I would almost never, for example, link countries like the United States, Australia, or Brazil whose names and locations are very well-known unless (a) the update is about the country (e.g. one of them joins a new international union *hint, hint*) or (b) it appears alongside two other linked countries in a list (like, again, in the Eurasian Union item). But, surely you have to recognize that countries like Burma, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and even Qatar aren't the most well-known. So, can we not be so hardline about consistency, or so gung-ho about expunging country links from ITN? I genuinely think linking some countries provides some context. -- tariqabjotu 07:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly, for the time being though I suggest you be bold and do it. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:31pm • 08:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The removal of the links was a reversion of an action of mine, so it would be unseemly for me to re-add them again. -- tariqabjotu 08:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah right, I forgot, I think that MP admins have done a wholesale sweep of all links to countries. If it means anything, I support this change. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:10pm • 09:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm the one who removed the links. FWIW, I generally agree with tariqabjotu's approach to not link well-known countries but to link lesser-known ones. However, I too was under the impression that the current consensus was "be consistent", and for that reason I would prefer none linked to all linked. If we can agree that some can be linked while others aren't, that would IMO be the best approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The advantage of not linking any country is that there's no grey area for anyone to get uptight about. And, if anyone wants to look up the country, they know they will be able to get to it indirectly by clicking on the bolded link. I don't particularly mind countries being linked, but I think its probably simpler and easier not to. --FormerIP (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we could have it policy to link any non-English speaking country. I think that countries like Burma should be linked, since the average Wiki-en reader has no idea what it is. Mamyles (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
That would mean linking China but not Norfolk Island... --FormerIP (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
In my view, there are valid arguments for and against linking all countries. The argument for linking only "less familiar" countries also makes sense in theory, but I believe that the execution would be problematic.
One principle for which consensus has been clear is that of consistency. When one item or element thereof is presented in a manner materially different from that of something comparable, people complain.
In this instance, such inconsistency goes beyond random style differences. It entails a subjective determination (likely to vary from one editor/administrator to another, resulting in inconsistency on top of inconsistency) of which countries are and aren't sufficiently familiar to leave unlinked. It opens the door to endless debate and accusations of cultural bias. It creates the appearance of an error where one doesn't actually exist. In short, it complicates something that need not be complicated.
Of course, the current situation (in which we go back and forth between linking all countries and linking none) is far from ideal, so I agree that we should seek consensus for something stricter.
In the past, I've argued that we should link all countries, but if we can agree to link none (apart from those that are bolded), I'm on board with that. —David Levy 19:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem that I see with linking countries in ITN blurbs is overlinking. When we have a short 1-sentence blurb it would be very easy to end up with a sentence where every word longer than three letters had a blue link: this reduces the power and importance of blue links as navigational tools. I think the normal linking rules for an entire article don't work well in a short blurb at ITN; ultimately I would prefer to see ONLY the target updated article (or articles) bluelinked: relevent terms would be linked in the article anyways, so anyone who was interested enough to read more in the Wikipedia article would find any bluelinks for unknown terms there. --Jayron32 19:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
But that subjective determination is done all the time. London, New York City, Tokyo, Paris, Mumbai, Cairo, and Beijing are all often left without countries, because their locations and respective countries are well known. -- tariqabjotu 20:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
We can rely on Global city when making such determinations (though disagreements nonetheless arise from time to time). And the result is much less likely to be perceived as an oversight. —David Levy 21:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
To be honest this is one of those issues that can easily waste a lot of time with much collective hand-wringing and deliberation and ultimately little to show for it. Why does there really need to be a definite policy? Why not simply leave it to the discretion of the posting admin? That allows judgement to be made based on the context. The problem of overlinking the blurb has already been mentioned above and I have nothing to add to that, but the nature of the story has a bearing too. For example, we may consider that Spain is pretty central to a story on the Spanish general election and consequently it deserves to be linked; equally for a story about an American actor dying we may decide the nationality is fairly incidental and leave it unlinked. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I can support the idea of drawing a line based on relevance to the event, but I unreservedly oppose the idea of deferring to the discretion of whatever administrator happens to post an item.
Different administrators have very different ideas of what should be linked (ranging from "nothing but the bolded article" to "most things"), so straightforward criteria are helpful. And while a certain degree of judgement might be necessary in borderline cases (which is an argument in favor of a uniform standard), no single editor's decision is sacrosanct. —David Levy 21:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
And that's perfectly fine. The same things happens with cities as well. Maybe I'm just more familiar with India, but I've dropped "India" from Mumbai and Delhi on several occasions. I also dropped "Saudi Arabia" from Mecca (in SA). These generally aren't problems. -- tariqabjotu 03:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
All of the cities that you've named are mentioned in the Global city article (with Mecca the only one not included in a table). I know of no comparable classification for countries.
What's your opinion of the approach suggested by Crispmuncher? With some basic criteria and the understanding that decisions always are subject to review/reversal (as usual), I think that it could work. —David Levy 03:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, nearly every city known without disambiguation is in global city, but it is not at all true that every city in global city works on first names alone. I would argue nearly all of the "alpha" cities are well-known enough, maybe half of the "beta" cities are well-known enough, and almost none of the "gamma" cities are well-known enough. -- tariqabjotu 04:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
That probably isn't the article's most useful table. —David Levy 04:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not expecting a gold star here, but Crispmuncher didn't say much different from what I said. So, yes (to David), I agree with him... because I basically said the same thing. -- tariqabjotu 04:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Unless I've misunderstood, Crispmuncher has suggested that we base the linking decision solely on the country's relevance to the event, not on a determination of how "well known" it is.
If I have misunderstood (and that isn't what Crispmuncher meant), I'm suggesting it now. —David Levy 04:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
It's unclear that's what Crispmuncher meant, because the example "American actor" (which he thinks should be unlinked) uses a country that is well-known. I'm curious whether he thinks "Burmese actor" should be linked. I assumed he would, in agreement with my suggestion, but if he doesn't or if you don't, then no I don't agree with that. I don't think there's a problem with linking less well-known countries, regardless of how relevant they are to the story. However, countries central to the blurb (i.e. countries whose omission from the blurb would render the blurb unintelligible) should always be linked. -- tariqabjotu 21:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
My personal preference is to link all countries, thereby eliminating the need to subjectively determine (and inevitably debate / edit-war over) which ones are "well known."
Burma is a prime example, as I would place it in the "well known" column. You evidently disagree (which is perfectly reasonable, of course), and it's likely that such differences of opinion are common. —David Levy 21:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, it appeared we reached a consensus, but that didn't stop the admin who started this whole thing from delinking again. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Crispmuncher and that practice would also coincide with the general practice across Wikipedia: to only link to an article if it's directly relevant to the subject. To switch the scenario: linking to Burma in a blurb about a "Burmese actor" is overlinking; linking to United States in a blurb about an election result would be perfectly reasonable. Nightw 08:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ummm...

Linking to the flag for the NLD isn't very interesting, wouldn't it be better to have a cropped image of Aung San Suu Kyi? —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:32pm • 08:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know people don't like flags as ITN items, but I didn't her picture was actually super-relevant. The leader of a party doesn't necessary make sense as an associated picture, but perhaps it does in this case. Changed anyway. -- tariqabjotu 08:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
True, but that flag was just hideous and it didn't really illustrate much. Thanks! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:11pm • 09:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The "Occupy" protests

Wikipedia rules on ITN are not working for this area of news. There is a global movement happening, and it's now at the stage where many instances of that movement are being closed down by authorities. (It has happened in my city.) No single instance of a close down will satisfy ITN guidelines. The Opposes on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates are technically correct. The real news is the fact that it's happening in many places, more or less concurrently. But no news outlets are reporting on it that way. They are all looking locally. We are the GLOBAL encyclopaedia, but for us to somehow combine instances here would be classic WP:SYNTHESIS, and totally unacceptable according to our rules. But it is happening, and it's significant. Our rules are preventing us from telling the real story here. I don't know the solution. HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews permits original research. Is it not an appropriate solution to tell the story there? —David Levy 05:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I have opposed almost every ITN nomination for the Occupy protests and have suggested we oppose on sight (using WP:SNOW) any future nomination. Let us take a look at the New York protests - in the time frame of a few hours, the protests were dismantled, taken to court, and protesters returned (standing up). What would the ITN blurb be? "Police dismantle protest which is now back in the name place"? That is now NEWS, that is a DEVELOPMENT, and a minor one at that. Let us look at Toronto or Portland - the events we were asked to consider were over before they began. It's not quite the Arab Spring, is it? We're not dealing with a movement, we're dealing with disgruntled minorities whose core belief is ill-defined and whose protests are largely minor acts of civil disobedience. The latest nomination on ITN, the New York protests, is rightly opposed for being a largely self-generated piece of publicity; it is not notable as and of itself. Given the fervour with which people are desperate to have a nomination included, I suggest that the need to have something supported has become more important than the story itself. As such, what we are seeing is a form of subtle vandalism. I put it to the community that to deal with the vandalism (this need to have something on the front page as a "trophy", we close down any nomination on sight. The integrity of Wikipedia as a serious project is at risk doktorb wordsdeeds 05:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
"I have opposed almost every ITN nomination for the Occupy protests and have suggested we oppose on sight (using WP:SNOW) any future nomination." This is exactly the problem I was talking about. Right there. It's extremely rare that someone so blatantly says they are opposed to any nomination regarding a specific type of event. I'm actually surprised you confirmed my suspicion; most would play dumb and say "no, no, I'm not against all of these events... just this particular one (and that other one, and that one two weeks ago)". -- tariqabjotu 06:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Honesty is the best policy is it not ;) Look, I would have supported a nomination of I felt it was a notable event...But so far, there has not been a notable event. We are being asked to consider minor developments rather than the moment itself. I think that people just want a nomination to make it to the front page for symbolic purposes and that is not why we are working on the project. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Doktorbuk could hardly deny it. It has got to the point where I've even made a few inappropriate observations about Doktorbuk's blanket refusal to tolerate any posts in ITN about the Occupy protests, such as, "At this point, I doubt that you would support an ITN nomination about the Occupy protests even if the NYPD charged in with tanks and opened fire on a group of hippy school children." I am curious about one thing - when he says "I have opposed almost every ITN nomination for the Occupy protests...", where is the nomination he failed to oppose?
Most of Doktorbuk's post appears to be little more than a personal rant about the Occupy protest movement, the Occupy protesters themselves and anyone else who dares to hold up a placard. Heaven wonders what he'd have said about the Reverend Martin Luther King or Gandhi. I disagree with 90% of the Occupy agenda but that doesn't blind me to the ITNworthiness of the Occupy saga. Nor should he. Deterence Talk 06:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
As I have said, Deterence, let us look at specifics. The New York nomination asks us to put on the front page what is, now, "A gathering was emptied by the police and now the gathering is back again." That is not news, regardless of whether it is Occupy or anyone else. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
No. No. No. No. No! In suggesting "let us look at specifics", you are missing the whole point of why I brought this issue here. Do have another look at my initial and most recent posts. Rather than discussing the merits of reporting on an individual event, I am trying to discuss the broader issue of how we tackle geographically dispersed movements LIKE this. It could about something entirely different from the Occupy movement. Please leave the specifics OUT. I don't want this thread to even be about the merits of the posting this stuff. Rather I want it to be about how we could justify posting it if it IS meritorious. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • When I made that nomination, it was the leading news story in every single Western media outlet, including those who blatantly opposed to the Occupy Agenda (Fox and Wall Street Journal). The only exception I encountered anywhere in the world was Al Jazeera, which out the Occupy Wall Street story behind a development in the Syrian uprising (which is also being wrongly ignored by ITN). Even Bloomberg - which focuses almost exclusively on business and finance - has been talking all day about the removal of the Occupy Wall Street protesters. And as HiLo48 says, we're not here to discuss the individual merits of this nomination, but to look for solutions to the problem of epic long-term stories being lost to (ignored by) ITN because the individual developments do not merit being posted. Deterence Talk 07:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Ignoring the political arguments made by Doktorbuk, and instead dealing with the main issue raised by HiLo48, the WP:IAR solution is to propose a blurb something along the lines of "Several Occupy protests are shut down by local authorities" or some such. If the Occupy situation is clouding the issue, consider another recent diffuse, but noteworthy, event, the Arab Spring. We could have said something like "Several protests across the Arab world have been shut down by local authorities". If the significance of the movement is newsworthy (which it is because news organizations deem it to be. Docktorbuk's personal opinion that news organizations should not find it newsworthy is irrelevent. They do find it newsworthy, and so there's no grounds for us to say that it isn't, merely based on how we think news organizations should behave), and if the articles are correctly updated, it should be theoretically possible to craft an appropriate ITN blurb. The two main criteria for ITN blurbs are a) is the event reported widely by news organizations and b) is the article, especially the updated parts related to the blurb, of sufficient quality. Other considerations, such as whether or not we THINK that news organizations SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be reporting the matter, is largely irrelevent. Wikipedia isn't about what you think, its about what you can demonstrate through sources. For ITN, the relevent sources are worldwide news organizations. --Jayron32 06:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Doktorb's misplaced attack on what I'm talking about will help me clarify my position. In once sense I agree with him. It's probably true that none of the individual events in individual cities around the world is notable. What's notable is the fact that there ARE many cities around the world where these individual but philosophically connected events are happening. My gut feeling is that the number of "Occupy" demonstrations is up in the hundreds by now. How many are still operating I have no idea. And that's the problem. Something is happening globally, but local news media around the world is not reporting on it that way. In my city the media told me about the removal of a camp from a park here, but nothing about the events in New York. I learnt about them here. I imagine similar things are happening elsewhere, but have no idea how I will find out.
To me, the ongoing worldwide movement is the news. Authorities seem to be responding in similar ways the world over. Demonstrators too. Something is happening. It should In The News on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Clearly, there is a great deal of truth to the concerns brought here by HiLo48. The biggest stories in the news are being lost simply because of the epic scale of those stories. The two biggest news stories of the last month have been the Eurozone debt crisis and the Syrian civil war/uprising, but they current have a snowball's chance in hell of being posted on ITN simply because most of the major milestones in those developments lack sufficient notability (especially when we're forbidden by WP:SYNTH from putting those developments in their proper context). Doktorb suggests that "The integrity of Wikipedia as a serious project is at risk". I suggest that Wikipedia's integrity has been thoroughly compromised by ITN's focus on crap like the resignation of dodgy football coaches while the biggest stories in the world are wallowing in no man's land. That said, a little common sense and some good faith from all editors who have left their personal political agendas at the door would fix this problem. Alas, I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to occur. Deterence Talk 07:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, this the opposes, save for Doktorbuk's, all boil down if they can stomach another US-centric story in the Main Page, despite other similar occurrences elsewhere (depends on you if they're have as much interest/as important/relevant as the one found in NYC). –HTD 09:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't really been following these discussions, but what's wrong with just having a sticky link to Occupy movement? Nightw 09:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We do not support or advertise causes, only write encyclopedic articles about them. We have featured the Occupy movement already (which is quite small I might add, only a few thousand participants), and unless a new significant development is made it will not be featured again. We featured the Egyptian protests multiple times because they were much more widespread (hundreds of thousands in every city), unusually violent, and instituted tremendous change. I'm not saying that I disagree with the Occupy movement, or think they're unimportant, but from a neutral encyclopedic perspective nothing significant has happened with them the last month or so. Temporary eviction to enforce trespassing or disruption laws is not significant or startling from any worldwide view.
I understand the frustration protestors and supporters have with lack of progress in their goals, however lack of success is NOT news and will not get biased advertising from this neutral encyclopedia. Candidates will be approved on consensus, when the community agrees the event is of sufficient international significance. If consensus calls for a sticky, it will be posted. Mamyles (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't get how posting a link to a widely covered, ongoing event is soapboxing. We sticky the olympics. We stickied Arab Spring uprisings (or whatever we called them at the time). Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
MENA protests. Nightw 15:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. FWIW I'd also support a sticky for the Syrian Uprising. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • According to this source [1] there are about 2000 demonstrators in the NYC park. Compared with the Arab Spring that we had stickied, that's peanuts. 2000 is the size of one high school walking out of class or a medium-sized company strike, which we would obviously not normally feature. Mamyles (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • You're either being stupid or deliberately obtuse. Mentioning the number of people at just one of the individual events is exactly the antithesis of what this thread is about. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I note here the same mocking tone which you used against me on this page. There is a need to remain civil in discussions. Mamyles has made a very significant point about the "movement" which is worth observing in the wider debate. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Do we really need a talk page discussion every time someone's favourite topic didn't get posted? I agree with HiLo48's concerns about some important events being too spread out to appear on ITN. I also agree with Tariq's concerns about personal opinions coming into play too often. But this section has devolved into an attack on some of the oppose votes in this particular nomination about Occupy Wall Street. (Note that very few of the opposers from that nomination have actually came to discuss this issue; this seems mostly a back and forth between users who were not happy that the nomination is failing.) I'm not interested in joining that debate. I suggest we turn this into a discussion on ITN policies in general, especially concerning how we can post important, long-lasting events with many minor "sub-events" that individually may not meet the ITN criteria. JimSukwutput 17:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
No, and along those lines we don't need to post everytime something we don't like getting posted. That's what ITNC is for. On a related note, why does ITNR have its own talk page? Its not like either this page or that get so much discussions that it's necessary. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The only issue here seems to be synthesis - but WP:SYNTHESIS says that Wikipedia cannot synthesize information from various sources in order to advance a position. As long as we keep it NPOV, it should be no problem. IMO, this does not currently deserve a sticky. However, it may be appropriate to combine several concurrent stories. For November 20-23, for example, something like: "Police enforce eviction orders on protesters from the Occupy camps in Toronto, Portland and New York City", given respective links. It also occurred in Edmonton and Ottawa, but those don't have articles. ~AH1 (discuss!) 03:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 NBA lockout

There's a very high chance it'll be resolved in a couple of days, but seeing the discussion the last time this was suggested, it'll be interesting to see how it'll turn out since the season is (partly) saved. –HTD 19:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This 'must be updated' nonsense

The 99th Grey Cup recently occured and was nominated to be on ITN. Despite overwhelming support, and Wikipedia:ITN/R#Football_(Canadian), it has not appeared on the main page. Since 2 days have passed since the Grey Cup, it would be stupid to post it now.

So why wasn't it posted? In the nomination, tariqabjotu answered the question this way: "Perhaps the fact that the Game summary section contains no prose? Almost the entire article, as it stands now, could have been written before the game. It's not adequately updated."

That is a stupid rule. So some random admin can over-rule two consensus discussions? Just update the lead, and hope that users get to the full article. It should not be the place of some ITN admin to assess content. Now a perfectly legitimate ITN story will be passed over (again) just because the content didn't meet some admins fancy. -- 00:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs)

No. Because the article hasn't been properly updated, the ITN item has been omitted in accordance with our consensus rules (which ensure that the section serves as a gateway to encyclopedic content instead of becoming a news ticker).
The "overwhelming support" (indicative of a belief that the event is sufficiently important) has not been overruled; it's only one part of the equation. —David Levy 01:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
"So some random admin can over-rule two consensus discussions?" Huh? No admin is required to ever touch ITN. For one admin to refuse to is not overruling anything, as he's not required to do what you say. --Golbez (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
My comment doesn't prevent another admin from adding the article to ITN in its current state (although I'd certainly note my disagreement to him/her personally). All I did was express what I had noticed several hours earlier, in the vain hope that someone would respond by adding the needed information. But, as in the past, the standard reaction is to complain about the request for further update rather than actually update the article. Had you or someone else simply added the paragraph or two summarizing the game, it would have been up on ITN hours ago. Believe or it not, complaining about this criterion is not the fastest way to get the Grey Cup article onto ITN -- if, of course, that is your real aim. -- tariqabjotu 01:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Catch-22 is nonsense. The problem here is that most ITN regulars seem to avoid contributing large sums of text and reference material to nominated articles in order to pass their nomination, even when dozens of other editors are in support. Is this a time contingency problem, or what? ~AH1 (discuss!) 02:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What's the big deal about scandals?

Hi. Although ITN only posts news on scandals sparingly, it appears that the Western media focuses on them to a great extent. It's true they may be occurring more often, or are revealed more often due to online leaks–they may involve government, institutions or notable corporations. However, how are they any more important than the other news stories, such as natural disasters, elections, science discoveries, deaths of well-known individuals, geopolitical changes, astronomical events, awards and other similar topics? Is there an attitude shift toward certain stories at certain times? My impression seems to be that scandals ruin the reputation of areas of the world important to the average English reader–but what actually causes their longer-term repercussions? ~AH1 (discuss!) 02:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Minimum length for new articles

I would like to discuss a line in General Criteria which states "In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs. An example of the minimum required update for a new article is Fuzhou derailment at the time of its posting." I disagree with the statement as there should not be such specific requirement set for new article. People who work on ITN do not necessarily have the knowledge to fully expand articles like that and forcing such quality for new articles vs. just updates does not make sense. By the time it gets expanded it tends to be too stale. If anything posting it on ITN would immensely increase the chance of an article getting expanded. If all necessary information regarding the event is there in the article and its referenced then i do not see why it should not be posted. All articles that dont have nasty tags or are up for AfD should be able to go up on ITN regardless of their length. IMO such requirement makes it really hard to post minority topics or even the ones that may not be covered by global media -- Ashish-g55 20:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If an event article comprises fewer than three paragraphs, it probably isn't up to an encyclopedic standard. You appear to stress the importance of reporting breaking news in a timely manner, which is neither Wikipedia's nor ITN's purpose. Such urgency simply doesn't exist.
The argument that "posting it on ITN would immensely increase the chance of an article getting expanded" has been made and rejected on countless occasions. Otherwise, we'd abandon the update requirement entirely (essentially transforming ITN into a news ticker and hoping for the best). —David Levy 23:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
You seem to have missed my point entirely. My only objection is difference between new article vs an update. I very well know ITN's purpose is not to break news but if a new article has all the information required with references then we are not breaking news any more. We are holding a legitimate article back due to a fairly random 3 full para rule. Atleast we need to argue if article needs more info rather than it needs this 3 minimum paragraphs. As i said it lowers our chances of posting minority topics and those that are less popular in media. How does that improve wikipedia? Posting an article gives it wider audience so it is common sense that it will only get better. No one is asking to post an article without proper updates and all due diligence here. And i got no problem in an article getting posted 2-3 days later but if this rule makes an item stale beyond that point and it doesnt even get posted then there is something wrong here. -- Ashish-g55 23:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe 3 paras is arbitrary, but I find it really hard to think of even a hypothetical situation where we would need to create an article for ITN purposes but struggle to get it up to that very modest length. I'd tend towards the view that even 3 paras should normally be considered too little. --FormerIP (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
its easy for articles we got lots of media frenzy but not so much for example scientific articles. In any case quality should be judged not quantity -- Ashish-g55 23:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Please cite an example of an ITN-worthy scientific event for which the article comprised fewer than three paragraphs "2–3 days" after it occurred. —David Levy 23:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I understand your point. My point is that "the best we can do at this juncture" isn't the standard by which we judge an article's encyclopedic quality. If the available information amounts to only one or two paragraphs, that probably means that important details have not yet emerged (and the nomination is premature).
Note that "three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs" is merely a rule of thumb, not an ironclad requirement. But when it comes to articles likely to be deemed ready at WP:ITN/C, it's a realistic description of the bare minimum. —David Levy 23:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Well i only brought it up since we were discussing the same in Ultralight Microlattice nom at ITN/C and at the time myself and others did think that we don't know what else to add as all the required info was there in the article but that one line was pointed out more like a rule. Luckily in this case someone with more knowledge expanded the article in 3 days now. Otherwise it was fairly close to just getting stale (hasnt been posted yet). And remember these kind of articles are lot rarer to see on ITN. I will go back and dig out few examples if you want but i would rather find solution for future such issue. Just editing that line to put some emphasis on content might help -- Ashish-g55 23:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Such guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, the situation isn't that nominations of articles containing fewer than "three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs" fail because that's what written; that's what's written because those nominations fail. —David Levy 00:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure if i entirely agree with that since this particular guideline uses the term "minimum required" and was clearly used against a nomination.And i do not blame them for opposing either since the guideline is strict and more or less sounds like a rule rather than show reason behind failure of past nominations. I know what you are saying but this guideline is not worded properly. -- Ashish-g55 00:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The text in question contains the wording "...the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around...", not "...the official cut-off for what is enough is exactly...".
"Because the rules say so" rarely is a good argument at Wikipedia, as exceptions can and do arise. But I just read Crispmuncher's comments at the Metallic microlattice nomination, which seem more along the lines of "I regard the article as underdeveloped; here's what's typically expected." —David Levy 00:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
My point is the same. Crispmuncher marked the nomination not ready while pointing that article out without considering if the content in the article was sufficient or not. While others had already said that article looked like it has all the required info. I even attempted to add stuff but really had hard time making any random lines up then gave up. Either way you look at it that delayed the process another 1.5 days, we already get enough complaints that ITN is ridiculously slow and such little things slow it down even more. Again not saying we need to post breaking news but paying more attention to content not length will improve the speed a little bit. -- Ashish-g55 00:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
No, Crispmuncher explicitly opined that the content was insufficient. The article's subsequent expansion (bringing it in line with ITN's usual standards) corroborates the assertion. —David Levy 02:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Well I've already stated that consensus was that the content was quite sufficient. More stuff will obviously get added the longer you wait (luckily it didnt go stale this time). But if you are simply going to stick to the point that we need 3 para instead of focusing on quality of content then there is no point going back and forth. Im only trying to improve ITN here but there is always someone (including myself in some cases) who will always fight to the very end to preserve current guidelines. One of the biggest challenges with trying to improve anything here. Anyways i'll try again when this happens next time. -- Ashish-g55 02:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I see no such consensus. Regardless, that has no bearing on the nature of Crispmuncher's comments to the contrary (comprising more than a mere citation of the guideline).
As noted above, I don't assert that "three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs" is an ironclad rule. I'm saying that it's an accurate description of the bare minimum usually expected at WP:ITN/C, the absence of which is likely to result in a lack of consensus to post. —David Levy 03:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason, besides "fuck those guys, we're not DYK", why we don't use the DYK standard for new articles at ITN? They require 1500 charcters of prose (not counting formatting, infoboxes, categories, etc.) for an article to appear on the main page. That does not seem like an insurmountable figure; is there any compelling reason why we wouldn't want to require that any article (new or old) to appear at ITN must have 1500 characters of prose? It seems like a reasonable standard for any article we promote via the main page... --Jayron32 01:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I generally subscribe to the reasoning that if consensus is for posting an article, it should be done. While guidelines can be useful, it's ultimately up to the community to decide what, where, and how to apply them. Therefore, we should maintain guidelines, but per WP:Ignore all rules they can always be overriden by a wall of unconditional supports. I think the current wording is fine. Mamyles (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I think there's a difference between DYK and ITN which has to be respected - nobody can predict breaking news. Sure, there's news we can assume will make it to the front page or current affairs we can debate about. But DYK work towards making an article good enough for inclusion; by its very nature, ITN can't do that. We know and respect (on the whole) ITN/R events but working on specific articles (say, the 2011 Event of Foo, or the Foo World Event, 2012) is done by experts in that event and not necessarily by ITN contributors. A leading statesman could drop dead tomorrow, and ITN would have to react to that - DYK don't have that sort of 'pressure' or 'climate'. I am in favour of making ITN articles a minimum standard, but a minimum length might be inappropriate doktorb wordsdeeds 14:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

I think the issue here is that people are ignoring the goals of ITN in favor of promoting items they consider important. One of the four goals of ITN -- and this generated no controversy when I proposed it -- is to feature quality Wikipedia content on current events. (The others are to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news, to point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them and to emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.) Instead of looking for in-the-news events with quality Wikipedia content, ITN editors often tend to promote what they feel is important, such as natural disasters and elections in developing countries, even if the articles are of inferior quality. At the same time, many editors vociferously reject non-trivial items they don't feel are important despite the fact that they have quality content. ITN is not a news service, as we all know, so there's no need to include "important" events that don't have (and probably will continue to lack) quality content. The fact that an item is excluded from ITN does not mean it isn't important. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Very well said. —David Levy 02:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
What he said... --Jayron32 02:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. And I think part of the admins' job is to ensure that this is realized in the articles we add to ITN. Unfortunately, there are some admins who are willing to post poorly updated and bad articles simply because of the immense support for the news story. And understandably so, because people get quite restless when an article with near-unanimous support doesn't get added. If we consistently post good articles, even on topics that aren't the most important in the world, perhaps people will understand what the intended purpose of ITN was/is. -- tariqabjotu 03:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Perhaps, though, it would help to have some better criteria to refer to rather than relying on a private understanding of this intended purpose. --FormerIP (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
What is the criteria anyway? –HTD 04:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
You put your left leg in, your left leg out. --FormerIP (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
We have a whole page discussing them at WP:ITN. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC).
These responses haven't been helpful. –HTD 20:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect try reading WP:ITN. They are detailed at length there and there's nothing more I can add to that. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC).
I suppose we're reading the same page? –HTD 01:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:ITN is more-or-less silent about what makes a good ITN story, which I do think is a problem. It's hardly surprising that people are complaining all the time when ITN doesn't meet their expectations. There's no clarity anywhere about whether or not it should.
Incidentally, I think the major thing missing from ITN's four goals is what I would see as being its main purpose - as a process by which content gets improved. In fact, what's in the goals is contradicted a bit by the grounds for evaluation just below. We are supposed to judge primarily by the quality of the update, not the article (although, obviously, we don't want to post links to rubbish articles.--FormerIP (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add my support here for what Mwalcoff said above, and go further and say that the quality of an update to an article should be more important than its perceived news-worthiness or triviality. A more obscure item with a good-quality update and an article in good shape, should be more likely to be used than an item with lots of support but a poor article and a poor update. The end result should be that readers click through to the articles and read them and think "that was an nice article and a well-written and substantial update that I learnt something from", rather than "I'm glad Wikipedia did its bit with that item that is in all the news sources I happen to read, though I didn't actually learn that much from the update to the article". I also agree with what Tariqabjotu said: "If we consistently post good articles, even on topics that aren't the most important in the world, perhaps people will understand what the intended purpose of ITN was/is". Trying to define importance in news on a global scale is ultimately self-defeating. Better to have a genuine news ticker scrolling across the bottom of ITN with only links to articles (no arguments about how to phrase blurbs) and have the rest of ITN showing other articles that people might not normally read but which are good examples of Wikipedia's better work. Carcharoth (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Coverage of death items

Posting here a diff of a WP:ERRORS thread for potential further discussion: [2]. It was about the recent Gary Speed item. There were several points there and elsewhere suggesting that some aspects of the way ITN handles such items could be slightly tweaked:

  • (1) When a death that generates lots of media coverage first occurs, the coverage is in the style of 'breaking news' because that is what it is, and the ITN blurb tend to follow that style ('X is found dead'). As time goes on, though, the coverage becomes more measured and obituaries and tributes are paid, and the news coverage moves to things like the inquest, funeral, and tributes and memorials. What I observed here is that if the item remains on ITN for a long time, or its initial appearance is delayed by discussion of whether to include it or not, then Wikipedia can seem to be saying "breaking news: x found dead", when most people who know of the news will read that and think "yeah, we know, that's old news now". This is why blurbs along the lines of "<nationality> <profession> <name> dies aged <age>" have more 'shelf life' than "found dead" wording. Essentially, it just feels wrong to be saying "found dead" 8 days after the event. Does anyone else agree with that?
  • (2) The point was also made about whether cause of death should be mentioned as standard. My view is that it is not strictly necessary (the article is there for people who want to read about that), but can be included. I'd personally try and be sensitive about this, as unnecessarily highlighting the manner of death can seem insensitive. I think cause of death inclusion in an ITN blurb should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
  • (3) Might also be time for another discussion about what deaths to include or not. Gary Speed was included, though there was some objection to that. I notice that the death of the Brazilian footballer Socrates hasn't even been suggested at ITN/C. There is also some current discussion comparing Dev Anand and Ken Russell. Can anyone summarise whether current practice is following the criteria or not?

Please feel free to add further discussion points if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: (2) As I said in the ERRORS thread, Wikipedia does not need to be sensitive or euphemistic. We're not bound by such rules the print media may be. While I don't advocate being unnecessarily insensitive, being overly tact to the point of censoring out important information about the event shouldn't be Wikipedia policy. It is fairly common, if not standard, in ITN blurbs to mention the cause of death if a succinct wording is possible. The cause of Speed's death was highly unusual and added to the notability of his death; I'd say it was a key reason his death was posted. Generally, I support always mentioning the CoD as long as the blurb isn't too long.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU17zYt6nBQ; (2) insert cause of death if it is verifiable and significant; (3) there is no current practice, it largely depends on who shows up and how cowboyish the posting admin is feeling. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Mkativerata, could you say what the youtube link is showing? I don't usually follow such links unless I know what I'm going to be seeing before I click on such links. Some Wikipedians post inappropriate links (I'm sure your link isn't one like that, but I got burnt once before following such a link and I've been cautious ever since). Carcharoth (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone want to comment on the other point I raised? Namely the point about the ITN blurb saying "found dead" 8 days after the death (and discovery of the body)? Am I the only one that finds that this wording dates very quickly? Imagine a case where the funeral has taken place and Wikipedia's main page, for several more days, continues to trumpet the news "X found dead". It just grates on my sensitivities, and I'm sure I'm not the only one to find that. For a few days, yes, but not over a week. The really standard (and more informative) wording is "X dies aged YY". I would argue that age at death is as important as cause of death. The wording "Gary Speed, Welsh football manager and player, dies aged 42" would have told readers who he was and that he had died, and readers could then go to the article to find out the details.

On Johnsemlak's rather bizarre point about censorship, you can't talk about the ITN blurb being censored if the article includes the information you are alleging is censored. Please don't overuse the 'censorship' word, as that dilutes its use when censorship is really occurring. FWIW, the original wording said "commits suicide" (objections were raised about that terminology), it was changed to "found hanged", and then changed again to "found dead" (as used for Amy Winehouse). For some of the background to this, see the WP:ERRORS thread here (it is unfortunate that this thread was removed, rather than marked resolved, as if Johnsemlak had been aware of that, he might have realised that the wording over cause of death had been discussed previously). I should have pointed out that earlier WP:ERRORS thread, but hadn't realised that not everyone would have read that.

On a more general point, using the terminology "found dead" is not a euphemism, and is not censorship. "Found dead" is a phrase used globally every day by respected and reliable news sources. Elsewhere in their articles they invariably give more details of the cause of death. This is no different to the ITN blurb saying "found dead" and then the article later giving details of the cause of death (if known). No euphemisms, and no censorship. Just standard use of English language, and leaving detail to later. Your preferred style (more information up front) may be different, but please don't argue in favour of that style by comparing the more restrained style to censorship. Carcharoth (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Elections (other than russia)

Since we're on the subject, Russia got posted, but Croatia, Slovenia (yes, still waiting for the official results), Belgium, Gambia, Liberia, Nicaragua and Guatemala didn't. Is it just a matter of needing an admin to update the template? Not trying to point fingers or start a Liberia is better than Belgium argument, just wondering. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's the matter of needing someone to update the article on most accounts. Dunno if any of those were updated when the nominations expired. –HTD 04:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, we may consider that all national elections are notable enough to be posted if they have quality articles. Otherwise, they shouldn't be posted. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Belgium (not actually an election) and Liberia did get posted, and Slovenia just now. Ireland, Morocco, Tunisia and Spain have also recently been posted. An election has to go through the hoops of someone nominating it, someone updating it and someone deigning to post it. You can't do much about the last part, but if you get involved in the first two parts then you might have good reason to complain. --FormerIP (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
All the ones I listed had noms that didn't post, but I didn't check for updates to the articles. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Croatian parliamentary election, 2011

How come there is no news about election in Croatia? WP published news abt Slovenia and Russia, why not Croatia? It is first time left-wing won the elections since 2000.

Reults are out now, officialy Kukuriku coalition won. In 7 days or less Croatia will have new PM. --Wustenfuchs 16:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived. Any chance of this being posted? –HTD 08:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

ICJ Rules against Greece in the case Macedonia-Greece

With regard to the comments and the supports given this seems to be ready for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've marked this as ready but the update under the December 2011 section may be too short, unless there are updates elsewhere in the article. –HTD 08:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

See this is what's wrong...

Right now of the five ITN items, four are about control of government in European countries, of which three are about elections in Eastern Europe.

ITN should have a variety of items, in terms of subject matter and geography, at all times.

ITN is supposed to serve the four purposes mentioned on WP:ITN. It is not about being "fair" to countries. There is no event that ITN should have to contain, unless it is of extreme interest to readers, such as Bin Laden's death. Something like the Slovenian election, which might ordinarily be something to post if it had a good article (which I don't think it does), can and should be excluded if ITN is already full of similar items.

I propose that WP:ITN state: "ITN editors should strive to have a variety of items, in terms of subject areas and geography, at any given time, so as to include items of interest to a wide spectrum of readers."

Secondly, I think we ought to say that a regular event's inclusion on WP:ITN/R means that it is notable enough to go on ITN. However, it does not mean it should automatically go on ITN. Ordinarily, it should have a quality, updated article and can be excluded if too many similar items are already up.

Finally, I think that at a minimum, any election article linked to from ITN should include:

  • The background on the circumstances that led to the election (where election dates are not fixed) and the political environment.
  • A description of the parties or candidates, including their background and political orientation where not well-known globally. In the case of candidates, their method of selection for the race (primaries, etc.) should be explained.
  • The major issues of contention in the race.
  • Noteworthy events that took place during the campaign.
  • The results
  • The likely aftermath, such as discussion on what parties are likely to form the government in the case of a parliamentary election without a majority.

I would rather decide which elections to post based largely on such quality-oriented criteria than on the level of government involved. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, to the extent that I don't think the Slovenian election is updated sufficiently, and the Russian one wasn't either at the time of posting. But, on the other hand, they are all ITNR and should be posted if properly updated. Unless we want to re-assess that whole sub-system. --FormerIP (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • problem isnt too many election items, its that there are very little of other kind that get through ITN/C. The way ITN is going these days anything not on ITNR gets opposed atleast by a few. Or someone will object to article quality and it will just sit there stale (for ex. grey cup). I know we are not breaking news (which some will remind you over and over again) but that does not mean its OK for ITN to be updated once every two to three days. I've said it before and i'll say it again, ITN should be allowed to loosen up atleast significance criteria if it hasnt been updated for a atleast a day (on administrator's discretion atleast). Few other suggestions if implemented would also help but getting anything new implemented here is almost close to impossible -- Ashish-g55 01:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The Slovenian election article has significant information about the results of the election. The article should be reordered (for example, Background should be at the top), but what else do you want? ITN has been very, very slow lately and I don't know why. We need more variety, but I'd rather have more similar stories than have stale news. Until a few hours ago, we still had a story from November. That's just unacceptable when there are only five items. -- tariqabjotu 02:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Because it's a lot harder to nominate anything now. The ones that are easy are those found at ITNR. –HTD 02:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Tariq, the Slovenian article features only information about unofficial results. I don't know if actual results have been released or not, but we should surely have waited for those and also for an update to the article, which still hasn't happened. The Russian article was not updated when it was posted and featured only predicted results, with the consequence that the blurb as originally posted actually stated the outcome of the election wrongly. I agree that the box shouldn't be allowed to go stale, but stories like Socrates and Ted Hughes (even though I nominated it) could reasonably have been posted. At least the articles were updated. --FormerIP (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The Slovenian election article might be fine as an ordinary Wikipedia article, but I don't think it's good enough to be featured on the front page. On the other hand, the article on the RQ-170 drone (the kind Iran claims to have shot down) looks pretty good -- we could have a blurb saying "Iran claims to have shot down a Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel unmanned aerial vehicle." -- but that would violate the ITN "rule" that each item should be about an event itself, not just background info. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, if you want to decrease the number of elections that make an appearance of ITN, say that's what you want. But, please don't hide behind the transparent veil that the Slovenian election article isn't updated. It has a number of timely paragraphs and nearly complete -- albeit unofficial -- results. That article well exceeds our definition of "updated", and -- at least speaking for myself here -- I am not entertaining any suggestion that it be pulled or never should have been put there in the first place. The solution isn't to hold back well-updated articles from ITN because we get too many similar stories; it's to support less "important" and more diverse articles. I don't think the Ted Hughes article is exceedingly well updated, but I have already taken note of it and will consider posting it if nothing with stronger support and consensus (something that story completely lacks) doesn't crop up. -- tariqabjotu 05:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The bar probably has been set too high for non-recurring items. We probably should accept some items which are very significant for only one country. But these need to be better proposed. Too many are presented as if the whole world SHOULD care about what happens inside one country. A little more wisdom and humility (e.g. "Yes, I know this is only of interest to us Xians, but it's very important to us because...") could well get a lot of items a lot further. Too many that are presented with arguments like "This is important to us Xians so it should be important to you too." That only creates antagonism. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not our fault that the news happens the way it does. We all want to have variety on the first page, that's not up for debate. But we have to act within the rules and accept the results of debates. In recent months ITN seems to become a harder and more exacting place - and I've certainly been one editor taking some knee-jerk nominations to task. All elections in sovereign nations are notable, that's a given and few people are opening that up for debate. Tariq is actually very sound at choosing nominated articles if it seems that the counter is staying red for too long. However I am quite hard-nosed against nominations for the sake of it - mistakes such as the Penn State sex scandal thing can never be made again. We almost had a similar issue with the Occupy movement though luckily sense prevailed. Because we can't dictate what happens in the broad fields of current affairs and news, ITN can only be as diverse as the world allows it to be. Quotas and category limits can only ever be temporary, like "sin bins" in certain sports, rather than hard rules. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The "occupy movement" got some pretty rough break ups in Oakland, LA, and NYC. I think WP totally dropped the ball on that one, passing it off as a "handful of protestors in a park". You can add Steve Jobs to the mistakes never to be repeated list though. Honestly, who gives a damn about dead CEOs? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The solution is to work on the quality of updates. When the timer is running red and there are no obvious ITN items nominated, the less-common stories can get more support. Regarding the elections, many take place every month and there's nothing wrong with reporting them. --Tone 09:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Honestly I don't understand the "need" to have a new item up right away. Some stories stay in the news for a while. I thought ITN was for WP readers to quickly locate things they might be interested in based on current events. I don't think most people in the English speaking world care about Croatia, or Gary Speed, or dead poets. The broader question is what is the "mission" of ITN. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I suggest you all have a look at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#End of NBA lockout. I posted a Support earlier, indicating that I was softening my opposition, with reasons, then we saw two highly similar Opposes which repeated the kinds of reasons we often see. This is definitely NOT a criticism of those Opposes. I have written similar comments myself many times. My reason for highlighting the exchange is to bring a specific example here, rather than have us talk entirely in generalities. Looking specifically at that example, how can we swing things towards including a broader range of items? HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here, HiLo. If you are not criticising the posters, why even mention it? If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that we should have clearer criteria to discourage certain types of rationale in discussion, then that's something I would support. --FormerIP (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The latter. Sorry I wasn't clearer. HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Well then I'm quite possibly with you. How would this be taken forward? --FormerIP (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
A massive table of nomination types and criteria is probably not the way to proceed. IE: Corporate mergers must be X,Y,Z, man made disasters must have X deaths, etc, etc. You'll be trapped in negotiation hell forever. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
A few examples of what constitutes an unhelpful argument is what I'm thinking of: This story is just about two planes flying into two office blocks. Okay, so they are particularly tall office blocks. But planes fly places all the time. Just because it's office blocks in this particular case, I don't see why that makes it significant. --FormerIP (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Planes don't often fly into them. A Cessna hitting a house probably won't make ITN though, even with the plane, building, fire and death. I'm not disagreeing with your overall idea, just saying. IMHO the criteria for inclusion needs clarification. "significance of the developments described in the updated content" just doesn't give us enough to go on. PS: WP:WHOCARES from AFD might offer some starting points. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
So for example, significance might mean the end of a lengthy process (treaty signed, conflict ended), or a major impact to something (if the NBA season was totally cancelled). I also think there should be a greater focus on what is actually in the news. If I see on Google that a habitable planet is discovered, I will go to WP for the back story and the details. Who cares if it's a misleading claim, that's why people are coming to WP in the first place, to get the missing bits. Anyway, sorry for the interruption. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Evidently, I chose a point of reference that was too obscure. --FormerIP (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
No, I got it, but, no disrespect, your straw man argument was absurd. The height of the buildings or the proximity of the planes was irrelevant. I actually thought a Cessna hitting a house vs 9/11 was a more accurate comparison of what goes on in ITN/C anyway. "You posted plane crash X why not plane crash Y". Sorry if I didn't get it. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I personally would like to see a greater emphasis placed on article quality than on subjective assessments of "significance". Too often, when I see objections based on significance, they are about "personal" significance; i.e. the person commenting doesn't personally care, instead of basing the support upon how news sources view an event. Events which are in the news and which have good articles about them should get more support about them regardless of whether the people who spend time at ITN/C actually personally care about the event. If we tightened up the criteria for putting something on ITN/C to insure that support and opposition should be primarily based on presence in widely-read and respected news sources, and on the quality of the article instead of on personal feelings it would improve things here a LOT. --Jayron32 02:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I sort of agree, but I also think it's more complicated. We are not just out to replicate what is prominent in news sources. We do also what to have balance between different types of story (including some that may not rank highly on the BBC News website or wherever) and we want to give coverage to events around the world. --FormerIP (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
True, but that's what the "minority event" criteria is for, to have a lower standard for certain events. I still think that well-written articles about current events which are "in the news" (even if someone thinks it shouldn't be in the news) should get more support. The main page should be for promoting good content. I agree that it shouldn't be merely a "news feed", which is why I would like to see article quality be a higher criteria for promotion. --Jayron32 02:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of local varieties of English, specifically "Plurality"

I hope that most would agree with WP:Mos#Opportunities for commonality that "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms". I've noticed that the word plurality is sometimes used in reports of elections, most recently today for the Moroccan parliamentary election, 2011. Readers outside of North America would benefit if a more universal form of words were used. Petecarney (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggested that blurb and I am in the UK. Is "plurality" a North American word? What alternative would be better? --FormerIP (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm also in the UK, and "plurality" seems perfectly fine to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
While "plurality" is not a common word, it is taught in US high schools' federally mandated government courses. Wikipedians who are not familiar with the term can easily use Search to find out more (as it's a very important aspect of many voting systems). Mamyles (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The information that the term is taught in US high schools reinforces the point I'm making. Not that the word is uncommon, but that is regional to North America. As the article explains, British English uses the term "Majority" to denote the largest single party in a parliament and "Overall Majority to denote what in US English is termed a "Majority". Some international English users will be familiar with the US usage but others will not. The manual of style recommends "Universally used terms" instead "less widely distributed terms" in keeping with the fundamental principle that Wikipedia is international and not centric to any particular region or country. Suggestions would be to use both the US and British terms as in Plurality/Majority, pipelinked, or to replace it with a phrase chosen to be as clear as possible to users of all variants of English eg. "Party X won the most seats" or "Party X was the biggest winner". Petecarney (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be some misinformation around as to what British English usage actually is. British English does not "use the term "Majority" to denote the largest single party in a parliament." In an election of 121 seats in which the largest party wins 60 seats, no party (in BritEng usage) has "a majority", so stated. It may be described as having a majority of x seats over the second party, but it does not have "a majority" of the body itself - it is the largest party (a term more usually used than a "plurality"). In a particular seat, the winning candidate has a majority over the next-placed candidate - but that is the only sense in which the term is used, except where the candidate actually has a majority of the total votes cast - in which case we would probably prefer to say "more than half". Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected, thanks. Clearly there is no single word in British English which corresponds to the US usage of plurality however it is easy enough to substitute a short phrase to comply with the MOS.Petecarney (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Collins dictionary says that "plurality" is indeed US English (although I'd query this, since it seems OK to me), with "relative majority" being the UK equivalent. Just to prove I'm not fuelled by jingoism, the US option seems better to me in this case. Choosing a universal phrase is bound to be best where there is one, but I think a tortuous circumlocution possibly involving slashes is worse that just jumping one way or the other. What goes around comes around and perhaps next week we will get a news story allowing the word "bollocks" to appear in an ITN blurb. Then everyone will be happy. Oh, so happy. --FormerIP (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Fine. It seems to me that the Collins dictionary is out of touch with Brit Eng practice. "Relative majority" is a term that would be understood by very few, "plurality" by rather more. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Online versions of Chambers and Oxford dictionaries also verifiable sources which regard the usage of "plurality" in the article as US English. Verifiability trumps opinion. No "tortuous circumlocution" is needed to comply with wp:mos and Wikipedia values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by petecarney (talk • contribs)
Is "plurality" that hard to understand? Or is it like the date order November 29 and 29 November? I would've preferred "largest party" but I thought that was too informal. –HTD 12:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
It means more than one, right? Nightw 13:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, so what's the issue here? –HTD 13:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
It's WP:VNE, for which "largest party" would be fine. Petecarney (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Like I said on 12:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC): Is "plurality" that hard to understand? Or the fact that it's U.S. English? "Largest party" is informal. It's like the non-word "winningiest." –HTD 17:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
So to me it means that they got more than one vote. Is that what was meant in the blurb? Nightw 04:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I just love it when Americans have the gall to say "but you should all KNOW what it means". In 50 years of being a politics watcher in my country, I have never encountered the word in that area. Just take the hint from here, and find a few simple words to use instead. HiLo48 (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

So this all boils down to "plurality" being an AmEng word? I've never encountered that word too until my political science class. There was this book on electoral systems and it did use "plurality" (didn't know if it was American, though). It wasn't that hard to understand when I read it in context (well, it was a book about electoral systems so it was pretty straightforward). –HTD 20:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
No, it boils down to it being a word used in only one country. If it was a word used in only my country, I cannot imagine anyone from my country saying, "...but you should all just know what it means". English is a language with many, many variants. We ALL need to accept that and be prepared to translate when there is any possibility of confusion. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
One country of three hundred million. You've got a dictionary, use it. Sorry that our variant is more efficient in this regard than the Queen's speech. If you have the gall to insist on using the plural form for a singular team, or call the wrong sport football, then yes, we have the gall to insist on using a word in English that accomplishes everything we need without having to resort to lengthier phrases. Maybe the Commonwealth should look into it. --Golbez (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
This edit weakened your response. I assume that you're being facetious, but you're playing into the American stereotype. —David Levy 22:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Nope. I was just cherrypicking a couple of Commonwealthisms that are foreign to American eyes, but I don't complain because I understand we're an international pedia. This much whinging over a perfectly acceptable (and apparently superior) word just because it's mostly known in only one country (which happens to have, by a vast margin, the most native English speakers of any country) is amazing. So yeah, it was a combination of exasperation and genuine response. It could be worse, we could be talking about if a plurality was involved with a Penn State coach. --Golbez (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I understand (and agree with) your point, but I think that there are better ways to express it. —David Levy 22:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, hello there HiLo! I'm surprised it took you so long to get here. Your American-bashing has been sorely missed! -- tariqabjotu 21:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Any editor who thinks the rest of the world should just accept the language of his country without question should be condemned. Only a paranoid editor would have a problem with that. In this case they were Americans. Show me an example from another country and I will criticise that too. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay. A recent discussion focused on our use of the word "tranche" (a term virtually unheard of in the U.S.) in an ITN item. A British editor commented that anyone unfamiliar with it is poorly educated (and maintained this position after being informed of the term's U.S. obscurity, extending his/her criticism to American education in general).
I attempted to discuss the differences in terminology among English varieties (citing various examples), and he/she also opined that my long-term unfamiliarity with the term "pram" ("baby carriage" in American English) meant that I'm poorly educated.
Incidentally, we retained the word "tranche" because it was the most accurate and efficient language available. —David Levy 22:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Prefuckingcisely. It's the best word for the job, and if some people haven't heard it, that's why we have dictionaries. Apologies for anyone who relies upon that noble project, but this is not the Simple English Wikipedia. It's generally assumed that we use the best word for the job, and if that word is unknown, look it up. We aren't using words like 'plurality' and 'tranche' to get our English Lit Major jollies. We're using them because they're the words we should use. --Golbez (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hilo, drop the stick. Editors from the UK (FormerIP, Ghmyrtle) and Philippines (HTD) have said the word is fine. So this isn't about using "American-only words" or what not. It's about people refusing to to get it. Hot Stop talk-contribs 22:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
In fact, HiLo appears to refer to HTD's comments, mistakenly assuming that a U.S. editor wrote them. —David Levy 22:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


The problem is not that "plurality" is a word in American English, it also exists ,although uncommon, in British English but with a slightly different meaning: "It means more than one, right?" as Nightw puts it, above. It's the very fact of the two different meanings which is the problem.

Thus, in at least one non-US English, it would be correct to say that, in the 2011 Moroccan election, a total of thirteen parties each won a plurality of seats while another five parties each won a single seat. I suspect this would look very strange to a US reader who understands that only one party at a time can win a plurality as defined by US English.

The solution can be found in the Manual of Style:

  • Terms that are uncommon in some varieties of English, or that have divergent meanings, may be glossed to prevent confusion. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia.
  • Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences (rather than alternate, use alternative or alternating depending on which sense is meant).

Would it be too much to ask to hope that most editors would recognise/recognize the wisdom of these two points and act accordingly? Petecarney (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to your repetitive complaints, we have UK editors telling us that the current language is fine. If the term "plurality" commonly meant "more than one" in this context (seats won in an election), I doubt that this would be so. You appear refer to hypothetical confusion that simply doesn't exist in real life. —David Levy 23:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd look at a local news website, and found out that the word "plurality" either meant the the most number but not the majority, or more than one, again, depending on context. I fail to see how can this be an issue, as no one has said that it's that hard to understand (despite repeated questions), only that it's the evil dialect called AmEng and we should use BrEng, or worse, simple English, all the time. –HTD 03:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that was my joke, which inevitably fell deaf to North American readers. To me, "plurality" is the state of being plural. The article says it means something completely different. Nightw 04:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's a word that a lot of people don't know, and it's not explained in the context, then it shouldn't be used. Wikipedia articles should not have words like "penultimate" or "superannuated" that a lot of people don't know when one can just as easily say "second-last" or "retired." In this case, we can simply say that a party "won the most seats" in an election. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see that today's ITN on the Slovenian election does have 'plurality' pipelinked at least, although, of course, Slovenia not being in North America, the article shouldn't use terms specific to North American English. Perhaps the best solution would be a change to WP:MOS to exempt ITN? Petecarney (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Beating a dead horse? Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the best solution is to know what a word means, and if you don't, look it up. Welcome to English, enjoy your stay. --Golbez (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
That is an incredibly arrogant approach. The relevant use of the word is specific to US English, which is not the unique language variant of this project. If you want to say "Welcome to US English", have the humility to say that. Kevin McE (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Elsewhere in this thread, Golbez expressed the same view ("...if that word is unknown, look it up.") regarding the terms "plurality" and "tranche," the latter of which is obscure in American English. So I'm fairly certain that the "welcome to English" remark was directed toward anyone (including Americans) encountering unfamiliar terminology. —David Levy 20:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. I didn't throw a fit the first time I saw "tranche" used on Wikipedia, so, as per my own example, if anyone is unfamiliar with "plurality", and choose not to find out what it means, it's their own fault. We don't have a list of acceptable words here, we use the best word for the situation. By "Welcome to English," I was referring to the fact that, due to not having a central linguistic authority and a few centuries of colonialism, it has blossomed into the anarchic and ofttimes arcane paradise you see before you. Embrace it. --Golbez (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
If I mistook conciseness for curtness, I apologise: I guess I've made comments where brevity may have led to an unintended perception of brusqueness. However, given that the application of the word is essentially foreign to a large proportion of readers (I had certainly never come across it in this context before encountering it on ITN), and that the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform, not to bemuse, such advice is not helpful. However, it must be admitted that UK English has no straightforward, concise, common term that serves the same purpose, and so, as recently resolved on WP:ERRORS, linking it to plurality (voting) should be of assistance. That might not be suitable on elections directly related to UK elections, or those in other Anglophone nations where the phrase is not used, but it would do for most. Kevin McE (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
No need to apologize, I was indeed curt. :P I've seen so much whining about the tiniest stuff on ITN lately, you'd think it was a bicycle shed, and my tactic has been to snap back at people. (Protip to editors: Wikipedia extends beyond ITN! It's true! Instead of obsessing over whether or not there's too many Kyrgyz or Slovenian or American articles listed, why not click 'Random Article' and instead actually work to improve the pedia?) It may be foreign to a large amount of readers, but it is by far the best word - any equivalent looks overwrought or simplistic to people familiar with it. Linking to the article is a great idea, and would do well to educate people who are unfamiliar with this term. (I also note that internal Wikipedia articles have never had a problem with the word 'tranche', as it is used extensively to describe the Arbitration Committee) --Golbez (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Elections

I am getting tired of the fundamentalism of reporting every parliamentary election in the world as gospel. When it's an authoritarian state, does it really matter? Blurbs of the nature of "NN, who has suppressed every oppositional party in his country and incarcerated every oppositional politician, won re-election yesterday" really serve no purpose. This was made clear by the recent blurb on the latest Russian election, where it was made clear that United Russia won, but not that they (in spite of extensive electoral fraud) lost about 50% of their support.

I think ITN should report news, but I don't think it should be a mic stand for authoritarianism. Lampman (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

On ITN we report facts, not specific interpretations of events, and certainly not falsehoods and propaganda like the crap you posted above. If you reviewed the nomination process that we went through (which you clearly did not), you will see that there was a very detailed debate concerning allegations of political suppression and fraud, and we determined that to be largely irrelevant to the results, as numerous reliable sources (i.e. not whatever junk you watched on Fox News) and independent observers attested to. The admin did not post the nomination because of a flurry of "All elections are notable" comments as you allege. Next time, at least read and/or participate in the nominating process before accusing all of us of being "brainless" and attempting to provoke a flame war after the discussion is over. JimSukwutput 04:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
With respect, Lampman, you have the attitude completely upside down. All elections in sovereign states are notable. Democracy in action, in whatever form, is in itself a notable act which makes it 'news'. We give coverage to all sovereign nations holding elections and nobody doubts that those articles are worth keeping, improving, expanding. For those nations which Wikipedia (or indeed the UN) concludes are not sovereign, then a debate is almost always conducted about their worth, and voted upon accordingly Yes, some jurisdictions are more fair and free than others, but that's not for us to use as a reason for voting. If we agree that Russia is a sovereign nation, we can but only agree to place her election results on the front page. Whether it is Russia, Jamaica or Cape Verde, the holding of elections and the entertaining of democracy is by its very nature front page material. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, you realize not all "elections" are democratic, right? Like when a dictator wins 99% or 100% of the vote? --Golbez (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
In those cases it's still appropriate to record the results here, and leave it to the wisdom of our readers to do the interpreting. I suspect most would draw the same conclusion you have. If we were to start interpreting election processes ourselves, we could end up in dangerous territory. We could maybe start with the Florida element of George W Bush's election to President. I won't take sides, but I'll bet plenty would. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Those elections are notable, yes, but not because they are "Democracy in action." --Golbez (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Golbez, you realize no election is fully democratic and transparent, right? Take an example - most elections in the U.S. have some element of fraud. In fact, under U.S. law it is considered proper to ignore these elements of fraud as long as they are not significant enough to affect election results (which is the only sensible thing to do - it is not possible to have a completely accurate election). That is why I'm extremely uncomfortable with these black vs. white classifications of some elections as "free" while others are seen as "unfree" and invalid. As long as there is no systematic manipulation (and there is very little evidence of that in this election), we cannot consider one country's election results as less credible; especially in a country with limited resources that do not have the public funding (and hence monitoring and transparency) of elections that others do. Most international observers realize this, which is why observers from all over the world - Israel, Mexico, Serbia, etc. have issued statements certifying the Russian election results and praising its preparations. It's only media from countries with a bone to pick with Russia that are advertising several specific incidents of fraud as if they somehow make Russia an authoritarian dictatorship. JimSukwutput 08:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Serbia? Really? Serbia? The country that was allowed to carry out genocide under the protecting wing of Mother Russia? That Serbia? Well, then I obviously realize that I was wrong, and that the elections in Russia were flawless. Sorry to waste everybody's time. Lampman (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Golbez Yes, I do, and if my post didn't make that clear it's because it was half-7 in the morning and I have only had one cup of tea so far :) I think we need to heed the advice above; deciding whether one country has more valid electoral results than another is dangerous territory. If someone posts on the front page "General Somebody wins the Place Election with 95% of the vote", it is the readers responsibility to conclude if that election is free or fair. All elections are democracy, even if all elections are not democratic. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What really are we debating here? The inclusion of all elections per ITNR certainly has been challenged before; however, surely we can agree that the elections of Russia, the world's eighth largest country merit inclusion even if the process or result was controversial. I think most of us agree that alleged 'irregularities' of the elections can be mentioned in the article if they are reliably sourced; of course we can also mention evidence of the election proceeding orderly. A third possible issue would be whether to mention any irregularities in the blurb but I've seen no one suggest that and I think the current blurb is fine. It seems to me that we're expelling a bit of hot air over an issue that isn't really under significant dispute. This isn't really a proper forum to debate Russian politics and I just don't see anything wrong with the current blurb or any significant challenges to it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If we want to disucss the policy per ITNR of posting results of national elections in all sovereign states, even if they are show elections or those of micro-states, well, I think that's a legitimate debate but also one that's been had before.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Major media in English-speaking countries covered the Russian election in detail, indicating that it was notable, unlike, say, the North Korean election, which received little press coverage, for good reason. There was "big news" in that United Russia got less than 50% of the vote. However, to me, the article doesn't look good enough to feature on ITN. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If I remember it right, ITN did post the NoKor election. I dunno if the blurb said that there was only 1 candidate per district or something like that. –HTD 04:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The election blurbs are about as bland as they come. Party A wins election B in country C. After that, the interested reader can find all about allegations of fraud, corruption, etc, in the article. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

41 people were killed throughout Syria yesterday

Does anyone else think this warrants being featured on the main page? Master&Expert (Talk) 09:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just read the intro to this page. I'm proposing it at WP:ITNC, unless it's already being discussed, in which case I will strongly support its transclusion onto the main page. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens

Hitchens is one of my favorite journalists/essayists, but as valuable his work is to my own personal life, I find it a stretch to consider his death to be of international notoriety. I am assuming the basis for this decision was that he, the deceased, "was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." What exactly is the 'field' in this case? Journalism? He never won any upper tier awards for journalism. Second and third tier, yes. Top tier, no. Is the field 'talk show guest'? He was great at that, and got some acclaim on popularity polls...but is that a 'field' worthy of ITN? Is the field 'Atheism'? Well, it doesn't even mention that in the ITN sentence. I think what it boils down to is that Hitchens was a quick wit, an intellectual, a solid journalist, and someone who was immensely popular with atheists, libertarians, Wikipedians and leftists. Is his 'field' being an intellectual? Sorry. I just don't buy that he's worthy of ITN. Kingturtle = (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Trust me; you're wasting your time. I got hung out to dry to for simply having the gall to say the article isn't updated. And, to be honest, I don't think comments after the fact generally hold much weight, especially as there remain a number of people who staunchly defend the article's inclusion on ITN. I really don't see his importance either, but it has enough support that I would personally post the item (with a reasonable update, of course), particularly with the generally slow pace of ITN with higher standards. -- tariqabjotu 23:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
There was a rough consensus at ITN/C to post this (despite my objections). It would take a clear reversal of that consensus to remove the posting. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he was an intellectual, a very public one. I like to think that makes him more important to the world than many of the celebrities, politicians and sports stars who grace the news pages far too often. (Are we really meant to debate this again here?) HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I think Hitchens does meet DC #2, despite not having won a 'top tier' award. Leo Tolstoy never won a Nobel Prize and he's far more notable than many who did. (by 'top tier' awards Hitchens could have won as a writer or journalist, I assume we mean the Nobel Prize for literature, a Pulitzer, or maybe the Booker prize). There are other ways to be recognized as a leader of your field. He's often compared to Orwell1 (who also failed to win a top tier prize). Gore Vidal called him his literary 'heir'. Salman Rushdie was a close friend and admirer. He debated Tony Blair on the existence of god in a televised debate. He had a high profile back and forth with Noam Chomsky over the Iraq War buildup. Very significant people responded to Hitchens or praised him on numerous occasions. I'd say that's very high level recognition. What works against Hitchens in terms of more formal recognition is perhaps his polemicism and the fact that he's a bit difficult to categorize--part journalist, part essayist, part commentator, etc.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_38&oldid=1151049114"