Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 37

Hewa Bora Airways Flight 952

If we are going to argue about the numbers of deaths adding to the notability of an incident, can we at least quote the correct number in our arguments. For this accident, the death toll was 74, as a look at the article will tell. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The last time I looked at that article, it didn't state conclusively if anyone had been killed, and it seemed to vary from 12 to a hundred and something, then there was the OR piece about it being the second-worst accident in DR Congo history. It still doesn't conclusively say 74. I think people are confused. We couldn't tell if it was a relatively minor incident or one that will go down in history, which is probably the reason for the discussion being the way it is. But alas, we can only write what information has been made available, which is always difficult with current events. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Mumbai Explosions

I don't know if this is the right place to start. But a very important news:
13 July 2011:
BBC News: Mumbai: Explosions shake India's financial hub
The Hindu: At least 13 killed, 81 injured in Mumbai blasts: Chavan  – ∃ Aditya 7  ¦  16:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As it says very clearly at the top of this page, and on the notice that appears when you edit it, 'To nominate an article to appear on In the news, please go to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates (WP:ITN/C). ' As it happens, this is already under discussion there. Modest Genius ^talk 16:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. – ∃ Aditya 7  ¦  16:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Main page features

A RFC is underway to discuss what features the community desires to see on the main page. Please participate! Thanks. AD 19:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you suspend that for the time being and take it to the village pump or similar for discussion as to the format. That looks suspiciously like a vote to me and we don't work on that basis - results of a simple vote are meaningless to establishing consensus. Similarly, overly breaking down things like that is likely to be counterproductive - it is very easy to be in favour of something, less so to say what should go to make way for something. Or if something is to increase in prominence what should be demoted to allow that. This is a complex issue and this RFC doesn't address that - all you end up with is a straw poll of opinions and no real basis for concrete proposals. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

I think the idea behind this RFC is to get a general feeling of what people like and don't like about the main page. Eventually I suppose the sentiments expressed their would get translated into some new proposals. Hot Stop (t) 20:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Or no one will be able to interpret anything meaningful from it and nothing whatsoever will happen. I'd bet money on it. Swarm ^X 07:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

NPA

why do we keep getting NPA responses to indivudual opinions DESPITE policy? people are supposed to comment on the ISSUE not the respondent whp is perfectly well entitles to hids view whaever it is regardless of what others think as long as there is a reason for consensus building and not "support per X"Lihaas (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm..I am also uncomfortable with the amount of personal remarks in ITN discussions, but isn't this kind of hypocritical coming from you? 1 2 345.

Other users might also be more respectful if you're willing to spend the time making your comments readable. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Simple solution: report problematic users to WP:ANI. Commenting here does nothing, just see above and tell me if that section has done anything. Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, no, Hot Stop. Apart from extreme personal attacks (e.g. racism), you do not go straight to ANI for a "simple solution". You confront the user and tell them you were offended, and a reasonable person will apologize. If that doesn't work, you go to WQA to complain about their behavior, where you might get a consensus that the users' behavior was inappropriate, or they may tell you you're overreacting and to move along. If a user's personal attacks continue, you might need to file an RFC about the user's conduct, and if a consensus is established that the user's conduct is inappropriate and it still doesn't stop, then you can go to WP:ANI and either request an admin to block them or start a ban discussion. Swarm ^X 10:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

An admin in the section I linked to said to go to ANI not WQA. But either way, this isn't the place for it. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to Syutfu, you're either seeing things or you copied the wrong urls. At least 4/5 of the diffs you just posted read fine to me (and by that I mean the tone, not the grammar). I'd struggle to even call the tone anything but conversational, there are definitely no attacks in them. Lihaas, without comment your gripe about the process, if there's a problem with a specific user and it persists, save the diffs and go to WP:WQA. Nightw 17:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

How can you guys judge Lihaas's comments at all? Half of them are utterly incoherent to me. Swarm ^X 01:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yao Ming? Really?

How is the retirement of a basketball player worthy of inclusion on ITN? He's not even one of the all-time greats. Can someone explain this decision to me? – PeeJay 12:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

please discuss with the posting admin on their talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

[Re-evaluate] tag needed?

One problem with the current system of using tags ([Posted], [Ready], etc.) is it discourages review of items where consensus might've changed after posting (which goes against the idea that consensus can change. Yao Ming, for example, had almost no consensus to post originally, then got 3 more opposes and only one support after (and please tell give me the consensus doesn't equal vote tally line). Though I opposed it it's too late for me to care if this particular item gets pulled, but I think it's something to think about for the future. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the issues was that people were complaining about 3-4 items which had already been posted at the same time. However I think that that particular item probably would have been justified in being removed - I think there probably was in the end a consensus to not post it (rather than being no consensus).

I think a [Reevaluate] tag could be likely to get overused without anything else, but I think having some solid criteria for reconsidering items would be a good idea, possibly it could be used in conjunction with that? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Review of In the news/Future events

Further information: Wikipedia:In the news/Future events

Seldom looked at and even more rarely carried over to ITN/C, what's the justification for keeping this? A large number of the items posted are already listed at ITN/R, but even for those that are not: if the events are so notable, surely someone would nominate them when they occur?

One possible reason for keeping it is to list articles that may need attention (e.g., expanding, updating) before being nominated at ITN/C, but is this pre-emptive process actually working? Nightw 05:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I previously raised the idea of having the bot automatically move items on FE over to ITN/C based on the date in the headings. This never came about, mostly because we never requested this from the bot operator. Both pages have changed somewhat since then - including the rather pointless inclusion of the number of ITNR items in the FE headings, which would confuse the bot - but we could consider actually implementing this. Modest Genius ^talk 19:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Which bot? If we can arrange this, it'd give FE a practical purpose, and I think it'd make sure that ITN/R items actually get nominated. And yes, let's get the old section headings back. Nightw 15:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBot, the same one that does the archiving. Mostly because it could be done at the same time - when the bot adds the new day heading, it just has to look on FE for anything with the exact same heading, then copy the contents over. We'd need to encourage a proper formatting of proposals on FE too. Modest Genius ^talk 16:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Contacted Anomie about it. Nightw 16:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as the section headings are similar enough that the bot can unambiguously make the transformation, copying over is feasible. But looking at WP:ITN/FE at the moment, the formatting is completely different and doesn't seem amenable to bot manipulation. Anomie⚔ 17:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why I said above that we would need to return to the previous simpler formatting. I'm going to be bold and make that change. Anything that's in a non-explicit date (so just 'August' or 'Unknown') could just be left there. Modest Genius ^talk 19:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, before I change the heading formats, is there any reason why we have Wikipedia:In the news/Future events/2011, which is then transcluded on Wikipedia:In the news/Future events? Can't we just use a top level heading for 2011, and another for 2012, without needing to maintain separate transcluded pages? That's only going to make life harder for the bot, and is confusing to edit. Modest Genius ^talk 19:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let's do this. If I'm correct in assuming that the calendar ITN/R events will have to be manually written into each year's list, then we can add the ITN/R events to the next year's list in December (or later, when the become known). Do we need a sysops to merge the pages in a way that keeps the attribution? Nightw 05:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm content to let this happen. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at what I've done. Pasted the content from 2011 and 2012 pages into the main FE page, nominated the subpages for speedy deletion. Nightw 05:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The subpages are required for attribution, and should not have been tagged for speedy deletion. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure in this case seeing as the content is gradually deleted and then the pages themselves are deleted because they're empty. The content is also talk page content, so each contribution is signed. But, if those rules still apply, the 2011 page will just have to stick around until the end of the year? Nightw 05:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Or can they be redirected? Nightw 12:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Those pages get routinely deleted at the end of each year. Since the signatures and timestamps are preserved, I don't see the problem in a copy-paste move for talk pages. Anyway, that has no bearing on whether the now-cleaner FE page can be used by the bot. For a start we'd need to get rid of the ranges that are still in place for some items. Modest Genius ^talk 23:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've done this. There is one "Date TBD" header I'm not sure what to do with. Might be worth adding a !note at the top. Example:

Nightw 01:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly support the implementation of this tool.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well it looks like we're ready to me. Are there any other issues anyone can see? Nightw 06:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

1) Why not use a copy of the header from ITN/C, with the relevant lines changed? The format is supposed to be exactly the same. 2) I think anything that the bot moves should have a small hatnote added along the lines of This nomination was moved from Future Events by a bot to avoid confusion. 3) The bot will need the new code added and presumably clearance (and a trial) from WP:BAG. Anomie might be on holiday at the moment (the dates in the note on his talk page don't add up). Modest Genius ^talk 12:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Also, I think that means each item posted in FE would require its own section header, as in ITNC...? Nightw 05:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This is about to get archived... Nightw 22:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Norway death toll

The blurb for the Norway attacks still says the death toll is "at least 17", but with it now over 80, the the total should be changed, else it's true but deceptive. -Rrius (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news service. We can report what is big in the news, but it's not our job to have all the latest, up-to-the-minute details. But we should do our best. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a strange answer. The difference between 17 and 80 deaths is pretty significant, and nowhere did I say I expected others to provide "up-to-the-minute details". I saw that the numbers were outdated and significantly different from reality, so I suggested a change here. Exactly what in that deserved the response I got? -Rrius (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I think you have read something into my response that wasn't (intended to be) there. Didn't mean it to seem offensive. HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Events are not required to affect multiple countries

I added the text "Events are not required to affect multiple countries." to the criteria and I was reverted by Crispmuncher. To me it seems like an obvious clarification. We regularly post events which don't affect multiple countries. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

We do and the the change is justified. Policy is descriptive, it's a obvious addition. RxS (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I refer you back to my previous comments on the above section "The Significance criterion - Not helpful". I don't doubt your assertion at all but the proposed change overstates the position. The international status of a story has been dropped as a formal requirement and I don't disagree with that at all. However, that does not mean that international significance is not a valid consideration when considering the overall significance of a story - in other words, a story that has a dramatic impact on a small area may rightly be regarded as a less significant story than one that has a lesser impact over a much greater area. I discussed this perhaps last week on ITN/C, but since that scrolls past fast enough that comments are easily lost I'll re-quote it here:

The fact this is largely a domestic story here in the UK weighs in too. Yes, that is a valid consideration: while there is no requirement for a story to be of international importance the geographical scope of an article (national or by extension even sub-national) is fundamental to determining the relative significance of a story. To argue otherwise and that geographical scope is an irrelevance is to argue that a big story that only affects a small village of say 500 people is more significant than a lesser story of multinational proportions. We're discussing this story here and it is not shoe-in nor a SNOW. Does the closure of e.g. an individual primary school rank ahead of this story on the basis that that story is more significant to the one square mile or whatever that school serves?

This is an issue that is relevant because of those blanket dismissals of positions of the form "International significance is not a requirement so an oppose on that basis means nothing". That is mis-stating the position: the absence of a requirement does not impose an automatic bar on it for consideration as a relevant factor. Since we have had enough problems with those frankly counter-productive responses even when the significance criterion was in place alluding to this, when we removed that critereon we also removed the balancing influence in respect of domestic stories. The change Eraserhead proposed clouds this point still further, instead of making it more explicit. A statement of the form "Events are not required to affect multiple countries" is superficially fine but open to distortion in support in a heated discussion. To make the point of explicit it needs balancing, something along the lines of "Events are not required to affect multiple countries, but editors may include the geographic scope of an article when evaluating the overall significance of a story. That does not represent a bar to purely domestic stories, but nor does it wrongly preclude an argument that a domestic story is not significant enough to merit inclusion on a summary of the world's news, in part because of its more limited scope. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

All the sentence means is that the lack of an effect over multiple countries doesn't automatically disqualify a nomination. It's obvious enough and describes the current practice. The example you used would unlikely be covered by enough reliable sources or effect a large enough group of people to be posted. To add a sentence that allows editors to oppose based on the lack of multi-national effect would render the whole thing meaningless. Again, the sentence describes current practice. RxS (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Very good point, the suggested sentence allows you to oppose on locality grounds anyway. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Any further comments? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Give me another 24 hours or so. I still need to trawl through the archives for examples of why this point needs making explicitly Crispmuncher (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Have as long as you want. There's no rush. It would be nice to see some comments from other people as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

• Two attacks in Norway—a bombing in Oslo (damage pictured) and a shooting in Utøya—result in at least 91 deaths.
• Two coordinated attacks in Norway—a bombing in Oslo (damage pictured) and a shooting in Utøya—result in at least 91 deaths.

Also I think it'd be good to unprotect the talk page for the news template. So submitting edit requests to it would be more intuitive. Egg Centric 13:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ERRORS. Hot Stop talk-contribs 13:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

How about we remove the 2011 Norway attacks article from the ITTN on the main page until the stupidity on that page dies down? It's gonna make Wikipedia look really bad otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding the conclusion of the 2011 Copa América

Greetings,

Hope I'm in the right place to do this... Yesterday, the 2011 Copa América, a globally known major international football (soccer) tournament in South America, ended with Uruguay claiming their 15th title. I know Mexico's win in the North American equivalent was not posted ITN, but the Asian equivalent was and I have no doubt the winner of the European equivalent will be posted ITN. The event did receive significant coverage worldwide. I think it should included in the template. So if it isn't a bother, can someone please add it. Thanks in advance. Digirami (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 Copa América Final has zero prose about the match. Before being posted. there has to be an update. See WP:ITN for what you can make out of the criteria. –HTD 19:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Zero is a bit incorrect; there is something. I think this falls under a special case as a recurring sporting event. The tournament is held now every four years (previously every three, and before that every two, and previously it varied before the mid 1980s) that just concluded its 43rd edition. Either way, it is very notable and I would hate to see the event not added before it becomes old news. Adding it would attract other editor to add to it (I'll try, but I'm rather horrible and at typing up the events of a match). Digirami (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 Copa América Final#Match details has zero prose. No update, no post. We don't care even if Obama was assassinated, there has to be an update first. –HTD 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a minimum content requirement of 5 sentences and three references. Its hardly burdensome and is generally enforced. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh. "Generally." –HTD 04:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus in blurbs

The recent (and still second article on the template) posting of the end of the Tour de France occurred with a totally rewritten and undiscussed blurb. Several editors have since pointed out reasons why the proposed and discussed blurbs were preferable to that unilaterally posted, both at ITN/C and on WP:ERRORS. No change has been made, nor has any admin responded* to say why they are unwilling to change the blurb to that about which consensus built. *: except for one very unfortunate exchange, which reflects well on neither of the participants

I would not object in principle to the posting admin making some changes to the blurb, especially if the phrasing has not been widely addressed in the ITN/C discussion, but in doing so, he/she should be aware that that phrasing has not gained consensus, and so it is incumbent on him/her to remain alert to observations on it, and humble enough to change it if generates legitimate criticism. Kevin McE (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why he decided to post a blurb different to the one supported, but Tariq seems a reasonable enough editor that he would revert to the original once he sees opposition. Except for minor corrections, I don't agree with admins posting their own versions of blurbs. Nightw 09:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but Tariq hasn't been on Wiki for 47 hours: can no other admin see the comments and judge the consensus and issues?

If it is the case, as I suspect, that admins on ITN/C pay little attention to comments on that page after a Posted tag has been placed on an item, then it should be explicit that it becomes a matter for WP:ERRORS after that tag has been posted, and the admins at WP:ERRORS should be made aware that the matter is in their purview. Kevin McE (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that's what it's there for. I don't know why you aren't getting any responses. Nightw 12:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Does ITN have a guideline on linking plain English words?

I notice that today's ITN links to plain English words like 'cycling' and 'Australian'. Does ITN have a guideline on linking plain English words? Lightmouse (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOSLINKS. Nightw 10:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that guideline says:

• Avoid linking plain English words.
• Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, and common professions.

Yet we see 'cycling' and 'Australian' linked in ITN on the Main Page. Is that a one-off error or something wrong with review? Lightmouse (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As I see you've commented on WP:ERRORS, I'm going to presume you know the answer already. If not, see the thread directly above this one. Nightw 10:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I did see the discussion WP:ERRORS but I didn't see the thread above. That does provide some context, thanks for pointing it out. I hope it will improve review. Lightmouse (talk) 10:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Significance criterion - Not helpful

Has anyone else had a look at this lately? It's not very helpful. The whole Significance sub-section goes like this...

Unlike the TFA and Did you know sections of the Main Page, ITN rejects items deemed trivial. The criterion was previously written as "a story of international importance or interest". This standard is highly subjective and the focus of much of the disagreement over particular candidates. The most common form of opposition on this ground is that the news is "too local" and not of interest to people in the commenter's country of origin.

Has something been lost here? It tells me how this criterion "was previously written", but not what it is now. Maybe I'm missing something, but if that's all we have, it's no wonder we have occasional disagreements. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that myself a few days ago. It was so inscrutable that I just wandered off. I was tempted to just delete it. RxS (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the most recent discussion on how to update our criteria took place here: Wikipedia talk:ITN3.0. Could we perhaps copy over what was agreed on onto the WP:ITN?--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That has been added as well at the top. I suggest throwing out the significance criteria as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. Are there any suggestions about a better way to express it? Is there even a need for it? I'd argue that it's not really needed, significance is pretty subjective and can be decided on a case by case basis depending on other factors. RxS (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think it should stay at least in part. The last sentence is key. It makes explicit that while international significance is not a requirement for a story lack thereof is still valid grounds for opposition (regardless of the assertions of some at ITN/C). Trimming that out is a substantive change - it is clearly needed since people don't get that point even when it is spelled out. Heaven help us if it is simply implied. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

The first sentence of this section was both important and relevant. It should be reincorporated (albeit rephrased) into the page ASAP, probably into the 'Purpose' or 'Criteria' sections. We are not a tabloid, and consensus on this point has been repeatedly reaffirmed. I agree that the rest of the paragraph was unhelpful. Modest Genius ^talk 16:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The lack of international significance is mentioned on the candidates page, and I've added it explicitly to the criteria section. With regards to us not being a tabloid I think that is pretty obvious, and frankly I think removing it explicitly from the policy may reduce the intensity of debate when a "tabloid" item breaks through into the rest of the news media. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: The 'no trivia' criteria--I wasn't a fan of the word 'trivia' but I don't have a better wording for now and I support re-adding that sentences. It would be a useful criterion to oppose items like the Rugby player going to the north pole, or relatively insignificant sports records. We need 'some' criteria.

RE: International interest/impact--I've never minded it being 'a' criterion, as long as it wasn't a requirement. However, I would like to encourage votes that are more thoughtful than 'Oppose--US domestic news'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That was precisely my point. It seems untenable to me that the geographic scope of an article is something people are proposing can't be taken into consideration when assessing the importance of an article. It is one thing to state that international significance is not a requirement; it is quite another to then turn full circle and assert it is a complete irrelevance. I'm taking out Eraserhead's addition since it is a) makes explicit one, and I would argue incorrect, interpretation of policy without consensus and b) was in direct response to me arguing the polar opposite, so nor can it be claimed to be uncontroversial. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be added back aswell. The wording probably needs to be changed, but a significant part of the criteria just disappeared. We can draft a new wording here and then replace the current section with something we all agree on. Nightw 11:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

We do have a criteria section, it seems simpler to adjust that instead of having a separate section on significance. I think the criteria section is a good starting place for that, it already talks about significance. What's missing from that section that needs to be added? ITN rejects items deemed trivial maybe? I'm not sure we'd all agree what trivial means. If it's a codeword for tabloid I think we'd have a disagreement. RxS (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the nonsense over Potter maybe we do need a significance criteria. I'd say "ITN rejects items only being covered by non-WP:RS media sources" possibly some internationalist comment like "ITN rejects items that have no international coverage by WP:RS's." -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the WP:RS part, though that's probably understood. I'm less comfortable with the international coverage bit, not that it's too far off, but that it'll be used to shoehorn international significance back in. RxS (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In the past week local media all over the world, even many "reliable sources", covered the "phenomenon" of sunrise or sunset doing something "interesting" in the streets of New York. It was pure trivia, but easily accessible to world media because they all have easy access to American sources. It made nice pictures and video for that final news item/gap filler. But still pure trivia. So massive coverage, but we wouldn't include it here, I hope. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If its truly trivial but reliable sources covered it anyway it will still be extremely difficult to create a suitable update for it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think it's time for the ITN community to discuss how to deal with "repetitive" stories such as series of increasingly common ongoing floods and protests, thus increasing the Oppose frequency of ITN regulars. I see this as a form of news fatigue. Much discussion has involved conflicts between US-centric domestic stories and accusations of anti-Americanism.

Many stories simply do not get posted because nobody is willing to expand the article on time. Often, nobody bothers to create an article when none is available, and this seems to be getting increasingly common. I think this is yet another form of fatigue, which can lead to feelings of monomania. Significance may be subjective, but the lack of posting due to low article input dramatically increases this subjectivity when it comes to posting news stories. ITN has always been a selective encyclopedist news service, which has a community aspect that sets itself apart from mainstream news, and I think this is good though we should encourage discussion on which types of stories get more attention here.

Article creation is inherently chaotic, though individual contributors to ITN can always jump in to create or expand a given article whenever half a dozen or more !voters are witholding support pending article improvement. We are article writers and editors as well as ITN spokespersons. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 16:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If the issue is "fatigue" with certain types of stories why the widespread opposition when something completely different, such as Harry Potter's final movie, the Death of Caylee Anthony‎, or the launch of iCloud gets nominated? The first two of those had good updates pretty quickly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Because, and this might sound familiar, ITN rejects items deemed trivial. The mere opening of a movie, the acquittal of some random woman, and the launch of I-can't-even-be-bothered-to-Google-the-name-to-find-out-what-it-is? Removing the criteria when 4 out of 7 editors commenting here contend that it should have remained won't stop people from knowing what's trivial. Nightw 05:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

An item cannot possibly be trivial if you can write a GA about it. The launch of a movie in the most culturally significant book series of the past 20 years isn't trivial. Neither is the launch of a brand new software product by a major manufacturer.

What would be trivial would be posting iOS point releases, when the Harry Potter movie comes out on DVD or when Casey get's her first reality TV show. But guess what? You aren't going to get a suitable update for any of those things. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? What was the last good article you looked at? See Long hair, Acting white, Grammy Award for Best Soul Gospel Performance, Male or Female and Alcoholic beverages in Oregon... Your second sentence is unverifiable original research. We don't post every Superman movie just because it's the most read comic book series. They're totally different media. You've a right to your opinion, but "trivial" in this case seems to be the consensus. Nightw 07:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

None of those are articles about a news event. And posting the verifiable last superman movie would be perfectly reasonable as would the last superman comic. With regards to cultural impact name something else that's even comparable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

See this article about a balcony collapsing in Chicago and a local council decision in Port Macquarie. There are plenty more. Your logic is absurd; you're arguing that a change of government in a United Nations member state is trivial, but the release of a Harry Potter movie isn't trivial based on the fact that Wikipedia's article about the book said movie was based on is a "good article". In any case, the consensus was that the event was trivial, and it wasn't posted on those grounds. Nightw 14:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes a balcony collapse that killed 14 and injured 57 people in a developed country, that is the the biggest death toll from such an incident in the US and which led to over a thousand properties being checked. And then the second case which involved the sacking of an entire town council in Australia, another type of event that occurs extremely infrequently in developed countries (I've never heard of it happening before). Neither of those events was remotely trivial. The example new article - 2010 Jiangxi train derailment - only killed 19 and injured 71 which isn't much more than the balcony collapse - except that train crashes occur more frequently, and in fact there was a previous accident in China, the 2008 Shandong train collision which occurred two years earlier and had a significantly higher death toll.

Additionally while Potter may not have as much impact as the Tuvalu election for the 12000 people who live there - it has sold half a billion copies, and therefore provided some impact to that huge number of people. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You're talking about the book, yes, not the movie that you wanted posted? As for the movie, consensus was that it was a trivial event until it hit a record. You can go on whinging about it forever, it's not going to overturn the consensus. It wasn't posted on grounds of it being trivial. Nightw 16:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The movie series is the most profitable ever - I expect a similarly large number of people have seen it - especially including pirated copies. And there wasn't a consensus not to post the launch of the Potter movie - there just wasn't a consensus to post it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Crystal balling and semantics. Nightw 17:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no-consensus to post something doesn't mean there is a consensus that the item was trivial - that's obvious. On the other thing sure, but we do know its the most profitable movie series ever. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The other point to remember is that you strongly support posting elections for small-town sized countries. I initially was against that, but realised that if someone was going to write a suitable update it didn't really matter and was worth posting. Therefore in reasonable exchange you should allow people to post other items that you don't like without calling them trivial. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't oppose them because I "don't like" them, I oppose them because they are trivial. A change of leadership in a sovereign state and a member of the United Nations is not trivial. It affects a significant amount of people. The acquital of a middle-aged woman from some of the charges brought against her is not going to affect anybody but herself and maybe some concerned relatives. Nightw 07:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

the tuvalu election only affects the 12000 people in tuvalu. That's not a significant number. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

But it IS a country, and to a Tuvaluan, it's their election, and surely just as important as a US election is to an American. HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but the purpose of ITN is to provide content people are likely to be searching for and to feature topics that might interest our readers. Since this is the English Wikipedia, an American election fulfills that purpose better than a election in Tuvalu. That's not to say a Tuvaluan election is trivial, but we can make a distinction between the two when deciding how best to serve our readers. RxS (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ummm. Tuvalu has two official languages. English is on of them. Perhaps you picked a poor example. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of its official language status it still has the population of a small town. In contrast there are 300 million people in the United States who are directly affected by US elections, and due to the US being a powerful country its choice of leadership has significant impact on the rest of the world, whereas Tuvalu's international impact is negligible at best. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Something grates with me every time that line is trotted out. Yes, America is big and powerful, and it does dominate world affairs, but this is a global encyclopaedia. Even without Wikipedia, the world would still get to know heaps about American elections, whether it wants to or not, but it won't learn about the Tuvaluan election. That's what encyclopaedias are for. And that's where we come in. We must be global. We must avoid letting America's bigness dominate this global encyclopaedia. The CIA World Fact Book gives equal weight to every country. When it comes to national elections, I think we should too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

We're not here to push information on people, we're (ITN) here to provide information our readers are already (or may be) interested in. It's not logical to think our readers will be equally interested in an Tuvaluan election as it would be an American election since this is the English version of Wikipedia and yes, nearly half our readers are American. So to treat both elections the same is to ignore the purpose of ITN and would push information we think they should be interested in. Wikipedia itself is the proper CIA Fact Book equivalent in this context and it does treat Tuvaluan elections and American elections the same, at least to the best efforts of our editors and certainly does by policy. RxS (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You can replace the US with India, Japan or even somewhere like Singapore and the argument stays the same. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Can someone provide a fairly objective definition of trivial in this context, keeping in mind the purpose of ITN? Because if we can't fine a consensual definition of the word we shouldn't be using it as a selection criteria. RxS (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

An item that's either not covered by multiple WP:RS's or for which a suitable update cannot be written. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Any objections? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Definitions built around negatives are clumsy and difficult to see in simple terms. We need to try to describe what it is, rather than what it's not HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

OK then an item which is covered by multiple reliable sources and which a suitable update can be written is non-trivial. De Morgan's laws FTW! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In reply to Hilo48's edit summary point to an article which has had a suitable update as well as reliable source coverage for a Hollywood baby. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't be bothered going off to find it, but I agree entirely with HiLo on that one. Of course all media and outlets will fill space with cheap stories from the wires that might be interesting to the public, without being meaningfully in the public interest. I use the Guardian or The Independent as my printed news, and BBC news, radio and on-line, but I heard all about Madonna's adopted babies, Harper Seven Beckham, and Amy Whitehouse's decline into substance abuse (which of course, had far more coverage than her record releases). Kevin McE (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The reliable source side of the criteria just helps limit it the number of stories you could potentially post. The update side makes it much more difficult. If you look at a celebrity such as David Beckham's article you'll see that there is only 1 sentence on his children. If you look at Angelina Jolie and Madonna's articles (both FA's FWIW) there is an "update" about some of their adoptions - but here's the thing these events happened over a large period of time and so its unlikely that there was a suitable update at any given point, and as they went to the supreme court of various countries they clearly have significantly more depth than the average "hollywood baby". If we look at Amy Winehouse, it is possible likely that her respiritary problems Amy Winehouse#Respiratory_problems would meet the criteria, but ultimately it is unusual at her age, and pretending that people aren't interested in celebrities is crazy. Posting that story is not going to lead to posting a celebrity event every five minutes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, that is irrelevant: you wanted the criteria to state "An item is deemed not trivial if has been covered by multiple reliable sources and if a suitable content update can be written." I have cited examples that have been "covered by multiple reliable sources" that are clearly trivial. As to whether "a suitable content update can be written", it is easy to imagine a few sentences being put together by anyone who has the motivation. Kevin McE (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the tabloid press seems to have no difficulty creating masses of content on celebrity babies. I'm sure some of our editors can be just as good at it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

None of which is appropriate for an encyclopaedia and if it was added it could trivially be tightened so there wasn't an appropriate update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Precisely: that is why your addition to the criteria was not helpful. Kevin McE (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Look if we have no criteria mentioning how trivial works then it can't be used in arguments on the candidates page. If you don't like my idea suggest something else that's workable and addresses your concerns. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion. How about we use Support withheld, Support pending expansion/creation or Conditional support instead of a blatant "Oppose" whenever we have a blurb but the article is not ready? This will at least give editors and passers-by a chance to bring the article(s) up to ITN standards and have one less roadblock to completing this goal. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 22:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Content up for more than a week

Why is there still news up for more than a week. That is seriously stale. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks better than the current abortion of just 4 articles though. Lugnuts (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the end of U2's tour even news? The fact that it grossed the most ever? The fact that it's over is only meaningful to those who might think "Darn I missed it." I like U2, but seriously!?!Titaniumlegs (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Debt ceiling deal removed

I'm curious about why the blurb about the debt ceiling crisis has been replaced with an older blurb. The edit summary says "there should not be two items on the same topic", but as we have decided after extensive discussions in ITN, these two items are not on the same topic, and that they both deserve to be posted on ITN. Why was no attention paid to the decision-making process in ITN? Should we expect admins to remove any item that they personally have qualms about, irrespective of the fact that they have gone through an extensive (and I'd say overly extensive) nomination process? JimSukwutput 20:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree there's no consensus to remove it. Further, PFHLai is rarely active at ITN, so maybe he's not as versed on our first on, first off rule. FYI I notified him of your complaint. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was going to do that.

Now that I've saw his list of contributions, I realized that my initial comment may have been overly harsh. I hope this is a simple misunderstanding. JimSukwutput 20:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Jim Sukwutput & Hot Stop. I've returned the blurb on the debt ceiling for now. The debt ceiling item at the bottom of ITN should come off soon anyway. (I see some blank space under DYK, and thought about cutting an item from ITN to improve the layout on MainPage... that was my initial intent, actually.)

Yes, I have not been around ITN or ITN/C that much lately, but I do come by to make some tweaks every now and then. The two blurbs are both about the US debt crisis, and I have a hard time seeing that they are not different aspects of the same story. Hence my removal of the second blurb, an older, stale item at the bottom of the list. I looked at ITN/C again and again. I don't see much discussion insisting that both items have to be on ITN at the same time. I did find one post saying "Support as a replacement for the debt ceiling entry". But anyway, I've put both on ITN now and let them sit there together. I can't tell the difference, but I must concede that I don't know economics. So I'd defer to you, as you seem to know quite well what you are talking about on ITN/C.

The "first on, first off" rule? Yes, I'm aware of that rule, but I also follow WP:IAR. There should also be some leeway given for the sake of diversity of topics on ITN. One of the purposes of ITN is to showcase what we have in the encyclopedia. We don't want to have too much of the same thing on MainPage. I suppose merely two items about the faltering US economy is not that bad. There are two space-related items between them, anyway.

I hope this clarify things up. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Soapboxing and disruption on ITN/C

Let this be a warning: I for one will absolutely not tolerate the use of ITN/C for soapboxing or making political points. While broad discussion of nominated items is allowed and, to an extent, encouraged, that discussion should be confined to the item's suitability for ITN. Inappropriate or off-topic remarks will be collapsed or removed, and those who repeatedly make wildly inappropriate comments will very quickly meet the same fates as Lihaas (talk · contribs). To all those who would disrupt ITN/C, or use it as a soapbox, you have been warned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be a permanent warning on ITN/C (the please do not section maybe). seeing it happen a little too often -- Ashish-g55 23:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Ashish's idea. While discussing the events themselves are not necessarily disruptive as that might relate to the events' significance, Lihaas has taken it too far in expressing his personal opinions. JimSukwutput 01:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And repeatedly so; should we consider an ITN topic ban? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't support a topic ban. He has done a fair amount of nominating and updating on ITN. In fact he was the main updater of at least three articles that we have posted on ITN: 1 2 3. Let us hope this block will make him focus more on contributing and updating articles and less on making tasteless remarks. JimSukwutput 02:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No response

So here's a link to my post at WT:MP/Errors. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought, but shouldn't the link for "preliminary success" on CLL research go to the wikinews article instead of the page for CLL? That page is already a redirect from "chronic lymphocytic leukemia".. CatDuFoe 10:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Main page mainspace links are internal English Wikipedia links because we do not assess updates in our sister projects. Additionally, that article was written after the item was posted on the English Wikipedia first. Each project is meant to be self-contained; opportunities for interwiki content have their own place. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 11:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Slow updates

There look to have been some rather slow updates recently, I think that if content has been on ITN for more than 5 days nominations should effectively become ITNR events and the opinions on the candidates page should be ignored. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Items have been slow in developing consensus as of late. Additionally the usual posting admin (tariq) has been absent this week, which may explain the delayed response. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 22:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Another reason for slow updates is the hysterical reaction when a close call is made. These days just about the only nominations that get posted are pile-ons. If people were calmer when something got posted without near unanimous support it'd be easier. In some cases a single editor can tank a nomination. RxS (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's silly season. Enough said. Modest Genius ^talk 22:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's a legitimate excuse. The world doesn't completely shut down in August. 9 days is absurd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• I try to keep an eye on ITN, but I can't be around all the time. I'm often lurking somewhere, though, so do feel free to ping my talk page if there's a nomination ready to go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Same as with HJ. I'm travelling over the next four weeks (hence my absence this past week), but I do look at ITN/C when I have access to the Internet -- and when I'm not in a country that has an issue with accessing Wikipedia. That being said, there really hasn't been much I could see adding without causing a furor (until now). -- tariqabjotu 22:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think most of it is attributable to the lack of nominations. We're getting an average of 2 nominations per day. Compare that to the 5-7 that we often get a few months ago. JimSukwutput 03:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011 Gaza Attack

August 2011 Gaza Attack should be linked on the Main Page - this attack was the result of Hamas breaking the truce with Israel. Polozooza (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You have made two statements there. In response to the first one, I ask "Why?". You really need to give reasons for declarations like that. The second statement is clearly made from a particular perspective. While neither disagreeing nor agreeing with you, I'm sure you know that there will be many other views out there as well. There is no way a statement like yours can be put on its on on the main page. HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

They are both now linked anyway. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This point needs to be reworded:

"Hamas ends its de facto truce with Israel after the country responded to attacks in southern Israel with air strikes on the Gaza Strip."

Quite ambiguous, makes it sound as if Hamas is conducting air strikes. 96.240.143.69 (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The article name has been changed - please change the current link to 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. The front page has a headline that says the truce between Hamas and Israel has ended. In reality it went back into effect last night. Shouldn't the actual event that set everything in motion have been the focus of the headline in the first place and not a declaration made by Hamas primarily for political posturing?—Biosketch (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Biosketch is spot on. This is an embarrassment for Wikipedia. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS guys. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've posted there but nothing is happening. It doesn't seem like anyone is reading it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Still no response. This inaccuracy has been presented on the main page for several days now. Why isn't anything happening? --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, very poor. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS has a massive backlog... it appears that way since discussions there are long. –HTD 03:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 Virginia earthquake

Would this be considered ITN-worthy if it hadn't been in a big WASPy part of the United States? I know there are no official ITN criteria for natural disasters, but I seem to recall lots of other natural disasters in other parts of the world being rejected before because they weren't "big" enough or not many people died or something like that. I see this one has a decent-sized article written on it (I've never seen so many words taken to describe so little damage!), which I guess helps (per WP:ITN#Criteria: "Conversely, an editor may write an in-depth update on a topic normally considered marginal, thus convincing commentors that it is deserving of inclusion."). But to be honest I just don't see this as very world-shaking (pardon the pun) news. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#[Posted] Virginia Earthquake for the discussion that led to the item's inclusion. I assure you that "WASPiness" wasn't a factor. —David Levy 06:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the lack of effort Rjanag put into his post I'm surprised he's an admin. Hot Stop talk-contribs 06:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Despite David suggesting some seeming total agreement on posting, a look at the discussion will show it certainly wasn't unanimous, and there was unanswered criticism of the proposal to add it. Was the posting editor not a WASP? HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand that WASP is a derogative term, HiLo. Please strike. Also, given that some of the areas that felt the quake, i.e. the Northeast and New York City specifically, are among the most diverse places on the planet, suggesting "WASP"iness came into play sounds ridiculous. -- tariqabjotu 11:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could understand why some Americans are so sensitive and precious. If you don't think I knew it was derogative (does have the same meaning as derogatory?), then you would logically think that I didn't mean it as an insult. So why take offence? And you must surely be kidding about those areas being the "among the most diverse places on the planet". That's a really odd claim to make. HiLo48 (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I brought up your behavior here once, next time I'll bring it to AN/I or RFC or wherever will do the most good. Both you and the admin (?) who are using that term need to stike. RxS (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(oudent) David Levy, thanks for the helpful response; I hadn't checked /Candidates (been a while since I participated here, I thought that would have been archived right now and I had forgotten where to look for it). I see that it was controversial but at least it was thought about. To everyone else: perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "WASP", I wasn't meaning to be derogatory but merely to suggest that this was maybe only of interest because it's close to home for a lot of en-wiki editors, whereas a similar earthquake happening somewhere else might not have qualified here.

The rest of the comments above are just snarky asides and I don't have any response for them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Virginia earthquake was posted, despite its relative wimpiness and lack of significant damage, because a lot of readers will be looking for information on it. Although it didn't affect people all that much, it affected a LOT of people to a very small extent. I think it's worth enshrining a principle that the presence of an item on ITN doesn't mean it's momentous. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Consider accusations of "XYZ-centrism" personal attacks and strike such comments

• We clearly should not be allowing mass "omg you're US-/Europe-/Canada-/UK- centric!" hysteria on ITN/C. It is disruptive and has repeatedly led to off-topic arguments. My proposal is that in the future, any accusation of being XYZ-centric gets the comment struck out and the perpetrator warned for WP:NPA. This does not include opposes that are explicitly said to be an oppose based on such XYZ-centrism; that in itself is pure disruption and should be ignored. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's patently obvious that some material that's posted on ITN IS US- or UK-centric or similar. Such posts are not helpful to sensible discussion. It's often done quite innocently, through naivety or simply limited knowledge, but that doesn't make it a good thing. It MUST be called when it happens so that posts with no intellectual merit don't unreasonably influence debate. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's quite one thing to suggest a nomination is being XYZ-centric, and another to suggest a person making a comment is being XYZ-centric/anti-XYZ. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally I have to agree that comments about people being XYZ-centric this, XYZ is the only reason that, etc are unhelpful. There are some instances where XYZ-centrism does appear in a nomination, but it doesn't need to be brought up any time there's a nomination from XYZ country, doesn't need to be made into a WP:POINT, and certainly doesn't need to be made into personal attacks towards those supporting or opposing, whether for reasons of centrism or otherwise. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There are valid centrism based points made every now and then. But if anyone accuses others of being centric whether supporting or opposing even though it was not explicitly stated in the comment then thats being disruptive. Its meant to be provocative and hence action should be taken against them. If you are worried about systemic bias or some other valid point then you need to specifically state it. Anyone that just announces that all opposes/supports are XYZ-Centric seriously puts a dent in conversation which goes nowhere afterwards. Time and time again i have seen this happen, it needs to be stopped and properly enforced. I dont mind Strange Passerby's idea but with exception that the person striking needs to report it to admin and explain the reasoning on users talk page. Otherwise i can see it leading to edit war -- Ashish-g55 17:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(←) Nowhere on Wikipedia is it ever "valid" to accuse someone of ethnocentrism of any type. It goes against WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in every sense. Does personal bias such as ethnocentrism exist? Of course it does! Is the way to deal with it to start flinging accusations left and right and create a flame war? Never. There are designated ways to handle suspected conflicts of interest (which depends on the level of disruption) detailed at WP:COI. However, nowhere else on Wikipedia is it acceptable to use bad faith assumptions and personal attacks in a dispute. It's no different here. This is not a DR forum. All of this should go without saying, as it only summarizes our normal practices, but the recent string of blatantly inappropriate behavior has led me to assume that it needs to be spelled out. If you suspect personal bias, handle it in an appropriate forum like every one else on Wikipedia. Personal attacks are never acceptable and are always conterproductive. Swarm ^{u | t} 17:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that x-centrism DOES occur on ITN nominations, quite frequently. Such nominations are unhelpful. It's wrong to let them stand unchallenged. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

But only when it's U.S.-centrism. U.S.-centrism needs to be bludgeoned in the face until it is no longer breathing. Then shot in the groin. -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban?

• Clearly this is not the first time HiLo48 has made such disruptive comments, and he has been warned for it previously including a length section on this very talk page which failed to reach an agreement because HiLo48 was unrepentant. So let's be a bit more upfront with this: I'm proposing a binding community sanction that HiLo48 is placed under a suspended topic ban from ITN, in that the next personal attack based on ethnicity or nationality made by HiLo on an ITN candidate will result in his being indefinitely suspended from the ITN project. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Support I'm thoroughly sick if his behavior. I'd like to see "broadly construed" tacked on to the back end of the proposal. In any case, there's no indication that there's ever going to be an end to this unless we make it clear we're done putting up with it. RxS (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Support his comments aren't helpful at all. He's made similar comments elsewhere on Wiki [1] [2] Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. HiLo48 posts these comments in a seemingly indiscriminate, intentionally inflammatory manner, thereby causing nothing but disruption; his attacks' targets naturally take offense, and those with legitimate concerns regarding cultural imbalance see their positions trivialized and confused with HiLo48's trolling. This has gone on far too long, and it needs to stop. —David Levy 04:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Absolutely, especially as any suggestion that his primarily anti-American comments are unacceptable are met with more attacks. I don't even know why we need to give him one more chance, but okay. (P.S. That dishwasher salt remark just boggled my mind.) -- tariqabjotu 07:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am going to say something that will almost guarantee you can achieve what you want. If there was a calm rational statement above, I could respond, but there's not. You're are behaving like a bunch of rabid dogs. I do not post in the same, conformist way as others (of whom we are frequently reminded almost a majority are Americans). I do come from a different culture, one where it has historically been said that we call a spade a spade. I'm not good at being politically correct. I am good at pointing out the truth where it's not always attractive. Call that unrepentant if you like. You must realise that you are unlikely to change someone who is different by culture. On the issue of anything-centrism, it does happen in Wikipedia. It's not good for Wikipedia. But you don't want to stop it. You want to silence the person who points it out. I genuinely don't get it. Is it politically incorrect? Silence me for not understanding, if you like, but it won't make me change my views. Wouldn't it be more civilised to discuss the hard stuff? HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not that you point out a pro-American bias where you (believe) you see it, but that you seem to refuse to accept that something to do with the United States might be notable enough for ITN, or that an editor from that country might support a nomination—especially one concerning the United States—for some reason other than advancement of American interests or this belief you seem to think all Americans have that their country is the only one that matters. This is, of course, a common stereotype of Americans, but one I have found to be completely untrue of almost all Americans I've had dealings with.

There is a legitimate point to be made about US bias—Americans make up about half of our editorship, and if we all write about topics that interest us, it's logical that we'll have a greater proliferation of articles on American subjects than, say, British or Australian topics. But accusing people of bias at every opportunity is using Wikipedia as a soapbox, which is exactly what I blocked Lihaas for a few weeks ago. On a related note, ITN does a pretty good job of geographical diversity and, on Wikipedia in general, if you want to point the finger at a nation whose coverage is disproportionate to its size (bear in mind that the US is the third largest country by population), then it would be best pointed at the UK. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

American bias (and Anglophone bias in general) is a real problem in Wikipedia. But criticising it too often can easily become disruptive. Instead of such a radical measure like an indefinite topic ban, can we not get a promise from HiLo48 not to talk about American bias for a few months? Nanobear (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that's the idea of this proposal, that he'll get one more chance then he's gone. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this proposal is particularly helpful. It is the job of the evaluating admin to weigh the arguments presented when making the decision as to whether to post or not. Artificially restricting the criteria editors may apply in their analyses is therefore unnecessary and risks stifling legitimate debate. I don't see any evidence that Hilo has been engaging in bad faith activity so neither do I see any rationale for wanting a ban or a rule as proposed here in the first instance.

In my view the real disruptive influence is this growing attitude that someone who disagrees with you must necessarily be disruptive, or if they are consistently using the same logic on a variety of nominations that that logic must be prohibited. In my view that is throwing AGF by the wayside. Yes, ITN/C discussion frequently gets heated but there is a clear distinction between robust debate and disruption. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC).

This obviously goes beyond disagreement. Hard to participate in ITN without someone disagreeing with you. He routinely crosses the line into personal attacks....and it's not a new thing. There was a section dealing with his behavior not too long ago. [3] There's no reason why we should have to put up with that. RxS (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't that HiLo48 is expressing disagreement or swaying decisions. (And I suspect that most evaluating admins largely ignore his rants by now.) The problem is that he stifles legitimate debate by personally attacking the discussion participants. As noted above, he also adversely impacts other editors seeking to express concerns regarding cultural imbalance, whose input is trivialized and mistaken for HiLo48-style aggression. —David Levy 00:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support his actions seems to be disrupting the process--Guerillero | My Talk 22:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Actions can be taken against HiLo48's provocative behavior but it will not be right to single him out. My initial post to HJ about this issue was due to Medeis saying "So far the only opposes we have are based on claims of US-centrism" when that was blatantly false and very provocative (check the Virginia earthquake talk yourself). HiLo8 messaged after that comment was made and i already knew the whole discussion is going downhill from there. Actions should be taken both ways otherwise all we are doing is shutting up someone that was provocative against centrism but not for. -- Ashish-g55 01:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You should learn to put things in context. This is the actual comment by Medeis: "So far the only opposes we have are based on claims of US-centrism, odd, as David Levy, points out, or complaints that not enough people were killed, or that Earthquakes are common elsewhere. But the point has been from the beginning that this is a very rare event where it did occur which is of great interest to readers. Are there any valid structural complaints against this being posted? Do we lack enough of an update or reliable sources? Comments would be helpful." [4] See how the meaning changes? Hot Stop talk-contribs 13:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No i didnt try to take it out of context. I meant what i said. the comment starts off saying all opposes are based on US-centrism, or enough people were killed, or whatever.... When you say all opposes are based on something then you have effectively grouped them together and blamed it on one thing. perhaps he didnt mean to say it that way and i would normally WP:AGF. However, right above that i made a comment asking about "what international impact?" and the reply i got was "If you have anything more helpful than to imply that Canada is not an independent nation...". Like WTH. I am from Canada for goodness sakes. So i saw that as a repeated occurence of provocative behavior. So no i didnt put things out of context, i just refuse to overlook behaviour in opposite form of what HiLo48 is doing -- Ashish-g55 14:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, using part of a quote to make a point without giving the whole thing is the definition of taking things of context. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That was really because i didnt wanna copy paste whole thing. Hence i said go check it out yourself :) what i did wrong was didnt put a "..." to show that the quote continues, i'll take blame for that. But ignoring that for a second i dont think i said anything wrong. We cant just pick one person and chop his head off for saying something when others are doing similar things -- Ashish-g55 17:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well Hilo has been warned in the past about this. Plus this proposal gives him one more chance. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Indefinitely? No. Maybe a year, maximum. Certainly something, but this is too harsh. Nightw 16:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

He'd still have the right to appeal elsewhere, no? Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Banned indefinitely" doesn't mean "banned permanently." It means "banned for an undetermined duration." If HiLo48 were to convince the community that he intended to cease the problematic behavior, the ban could be lifted at any time (even if it's just begun).

Conversely, a finite ban would serve primarily as punishment (after which HiLo48 would be free to resume the disruption), not incentive to reform.

HiLo48 should be permitted to participate in the process as soon as (and no sooner than) he's willing to do so in a collegial manner. —David Levy 22:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks David, I guess that makes sense. Support. Nightw 00:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support It's getting old, and needs to stop. If this stops it, I am all for it. It would have been better if HiLo48 had chosen of his own free will to stop it, but since he has not, this seems like the only thing left to do. --Jayron32 23:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support HiLo's comments are disruptive, and he has shown no sign whatsoever of acknowledging the inappropriate behavior and voluntarily putting a stop to it. There's only so much militancy we can stomach here before it becomes impossible to maintain any sort of collaboration and co-operative work ethic. Swarm ^{u | t} 02:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane

Just want to chip in my 2 cents here: I think it's silly not to mention the US in the blurb when that's the main reason that people will be looking for information on the topic. At the very least, we can say that hurricane warnings have been posted from Massachusetts to North Carolina and/or that hurricane evacuation orders have been issued for NYC for the first time. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh give it a rest. It's not the bloody US weather forecast. 84.93.152.48 (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it's not a forecast. It's ITN, as in To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news

There's already significant disruption in the US and is a huge story globally. Why isn't the US mentioned in the blurb? RxS (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

so if they come searching for Hurricane irene they will see it as top story and click on link... i dont see the problem. you just want to see US in the blurb, it doesnt seem to have anything to do with people that come looking for news. Now if you mean to suggest that they may not yet know US is getting hit then the point of mention would be to forecast. Am i wrong? Or perhaps you mean to say US folks may not know the name of the hurricane and will get confused if they dont see US in the blurb? I dont get it... In any case as usual it got added so its all a moot point now. -- Ashish-g55 02:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The story here isn't the insubstantial damage to Caribbean islands; it's the threat to the U.S. So, if people have a problem and think that's "forecasty", it shouldn't have been put up in the first place. Alternatively, it could focus on evacuations, which have certainly happened, even if the hurricane were to vanish into thin air within the next few hours. But leaving up just the damage to the Caribbean is evading the story. -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Then focus on evacuations, atleast thats actually happening. The term threatens seems to me like a forecast... keep it past or at minimum present tense please. -- Ashish-g55 02:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's where the focus should be. That's what's In The News right now...to leave off where the mandatory evacuations are being held is just perverse. RxS (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

depraved apple fanbois - now as a question and no BLP vio

So Mark Hurd bails on HP because of "expense-account irregularities", after which HP bails on the consumer market. In the news? Nope. Steve Jobs quits and it's #1 with a picture. Why does Jobs' relatively mundane departure get on ITN but Hurd not even get honourable mention. --108.132.92.8 (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You may get a better response if this didn't sound so much of a rant. I for one read all three of your posts and instantly regarded your post as rhetorical. If you have a point to make I suggest you make it in a manner that is less insulting. Are we depraved fanbois because we considered a nomination put to us? If your preferred story is so important why did you not nominate it? Do you feel insulting the editors here really the best way to address the issues you seek to raise or is is not possible that such behaviour will simply mean you are completely ignored? I remind you that no-one here has any kind of duty to address your concerns. Crispmuncher (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

LOL, ok, I'll go back in time a month and tell myself "hey, when Mark Hurd resigns, make sure to nominate it on WP:ITN because Steve Jobs will get posted in a few weeks". D'oh! It's not tit for tat, or CEO for CEO or even that Hurd deserved to be on the front page of WP, but rather that Steve Jobs doesn't. I'm wondering what makes this rather mundane bit of corp-o news worthy of sitting out on wikipedia's front page for days. I only held up Hurd and HP as an example. The only thing I could think of is that depraved apple fanbois, devastated at the loss of their messiah, came here en masse to get his tragic departure posted. Are you a depraved apple fanboi? I have no idea, I don't know who you are. Sorry if you're offended.

So could someone please tell me how Jobs got up there? And why?--108.132.92.8 (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this deserved a decent answer, and didn't justify being deleted. The answer is that Jobs was nominated at WP:ITN/C, where the consensus decision was to post it. You can see the arguments that were made for and against there. ITN/C is run by volunteers and we could always do with more people commenting and offering reasoned arguments for or against stories. Personally I don't think it should have been, but I wasn't around at the time of the discussion. And that's neither here nor there on the questions of why it was posted or why this query was not answered properly. Modest Genius ^talk 16:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Jobs ran the second most valuable company in the world. HP at this point is an also-ran. Steve Jobs is one of the most important figures in the tech industry ever - he made the first reasonably priced computer with a GUI, and then made the first MP3 player anyone cared about and the first smartphone that wasn't just for business users. He's a tech figure along with people like Thomas J. Watson, Thomas Watson, Jr. and Bill Gates. Hurd is not. And you should be able to make these points without using words like "fanboi". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Apple and Microsoft

"*Support iconic business decision. Gates' standing down should clearly have been posted. Given Apple is more profitable and more valuable than Microsoft Jobs is definitely a peer of Gates. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, sorry not Gates. A comment from Reuters compared Steve Jobs not to Bill Gates but to Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell, Walt Disney, Michael Jordan, and Jesus. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Who cares what Reuters says? Gates was the pioneer of modern computing. It's almost solely because of his work (and with the initial boost of IBM, of course) that computers, and technology as a whole, became so accessible to the public, during a time when technological advancements were not embraced as much as they are today. Microsoft, Nokia, and RIM were pioneers; Apple built upon this to create their success. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)"

Ericleb01, you're welcome to your opinion but you call Gates "the pioneer" when he didn't have any hardware product. (Wozniak's Apple II came out three years before the IBM PC for example.) I don't think it's fair to say that "computers, and technology as a whole, became so accessible to the public" because of Gates. Also, IBM only wanted good licensing terms; they didn't specifically need Gates's BASIC interpreter and operating system. Thank you for your interest. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

And they didn't become accessible to the public because of Jobs' apple either. It was the price point on the IBM PC and the clone market which actually did it. OFC depraved apple fanbois refuse to acknowledge. --108.132.92.8 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Tell you what, 108.132.92.8. I'll acknowledge if you would please use the term microsoft fanbois as often as you do apple fanboys. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No matter what biases anyone has towards/against microsoft or apple, Gates will always be the person atleast partially responsible for what computers are today. Not posting Gates' departure was a mistake on ITN's part (IMHO) but there is no need to put his achievements down to rationalize it. -- Ashish-g55 20:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if I withdraw from this conversation. I didn't realize what it was until I saw the term "fanbois". Peace. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

@Ashish-g55 ++. Its clear that both Gates and Jobs were serious pioneers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Main page question

Why is this still on the main page? It has been on there for 4 days. I don't think it is "In the news." Very regional event. Starting to get stale. And why is that event still on while newer events, like 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks were removed a few days after they were posted? Who is responsible for managing this? Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, did you know that every page on Wikipedia has a History tab? Amazing, I know. -- tariqabjotu 00:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The india story was posted on August 16, yet not only has it remained on the Main Page but also updated. Am I missing something? Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, we have a History tab. It was removed very recently and the reason for doing so was provided in the edit summary. I suppose you could be advocating reverting/changing the blurb to something else, but your question was only about what happened to it, suggesting some underhanded practice took place. Not quite. -- tariqabjotu 07:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

So you made a unilateral edit? Yeah, I didn't know where the Template section was. I don't understand your reasoning - the story was well-discussed and posted. Mods had no problem amending the week old blurb about the Indian guy, yet the Israel story goes? Please explain these "errors." I didn't see any explanation in the discussion (now archived) by you or another admin. Is this how things work? Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, there were some major sourcing concerns with those I-P articles. Nightw 16:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing is fine now. I don't understand how admins can just remove articles from the main page in spite of a consensus. I pointed out before the article on India was almost entirely dependent on Hindu cites, many non-RS. So unless there is a double standard those complaints are moot. Too late to restore the article but it is a shame powerful editors get a way with these sorts decisions without challenge. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You can either proliferate conspiracy theories or you could read the issue from the history of WP:ERRORS that went unchallenged and unaddressed by anyone for days. I knew you would do the former, and that's precisely why I didn't further address your complaint, which was going to be moot within a matter of hours anyway. -- tariqabjotu 02:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no page about "errors" regarding the article in the link you posted. I cannot find the article. I don't see any mention of "errors" here either than a small minority of editors complaining about the blurb. Nobody is proliferating conspiracy theories. So? Wikifan^{Be nice} 21:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I see editors saying they took it to "WP:ERRORS" passively but I never got the link nor can I find the original discussion. Is it archived? Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Right here. Found using—wait for it—the history tab. C628 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why wasn't this linked to the original discussion? The first blurb was fine, editors then say the "real news" of Hamas ending a truce (never confirmed) which ended up unintentionally sabotaging the posting. The blurb could have easily been amended. Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

For the love of all that is holy, why don't you read the linked discussion? The first blurb was not fine; it was dead wrong, according to multiple news reports that were posted on WP:ERRORS at the time. For example, see Israel and Hamas agree Gaza truce, reports say (BBC) which of course completely contradicted our claim that "Hamas and Israel end a de facto truce." At that point our blurb was obviously out of date, and the admin who removed it, according to the edit summary, decided that since it was unclear what exactly was happening it made more sense to remove the item entirely, rather than trying to update it. C628 (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It was never linked in the original discussion. Other blurbs are frequently amended without challenge. The first blurb about attacks on Israel was correct (and not posted), the second blurb about Hamas ending a truce with Israel was posted prematurely and for whatever reason declared more news-worthy than the actual violence. Numerous users posted alternative blurbs, including myself. Had the ERRORS report been linked, involved editors could have weighed in. Instead no discussion happened because the report was never linked. Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't linked in the original discussion. The point of having the errors page is that errors can be reported after they go on the main page.

Now, looking at the actual [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2011#[Posted] Israel-Hamas end of truce]] (if someone could tell me why the hell that won't link, I'd appreciate it), the actual original discussion, I see that the very first blurb was not posted because of legitimate POV concerns about excessive focus in Israel. Instead, there was a blurb posted that included links to both attacks by Israel and by Hamas, which you promptly objected to, on the grounds that one of the articles was a POV fork. (Since then, everything seems to have been merged into one article) After the posting, I don't see a single alternative blurb posted by anyone, just a lot of you claiming that something was POV/against policy and everyone else agreeing it wasn't. The general concensus of everyone else was that it was appropriate to have two articles in the blurb, and so it remained until the point when it was removed due to being out of date, as I've already attempted to explain. I really do not see any reason to claim some conspiracy about how discussion was happening behind the backs of other people, nor ground to complain about how this was carried out.

In any case, the item in question is going on two weeks old and there is nothing productive coming out of this, so I'm not going to comment here again. C628 (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The link doesn't work because of the square brackets around [Posted]; it should work if you percent-encode them. Modest Genius ^talk 15:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Janapese Prime Minister

He still remains so until the next election so shouldn't it be worded as 'announces his resignation' rather than 'resigns'? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  14:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

He's only PM until tomorrow, when his party elects a new leader. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should WP:ITN area discussions on items in the WP:ARBPIA topic area be subjected to WP:ARBPIA itself?

This is, or has become, an issue of user conduct. Please take it to AE, ANI, or back to WQA. Questions concerning the applicability of general sanctions, whether under ARBPIA or other measures, should be directed to WT:AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As per the discussion on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:Jim_Sukwutput, I feel there are no personal attack issues, but there could be an emergence of WP:BATTLEGROUND issues that could affect the functioning of the very important WP:ITN area (including all the ITN subpages and talk pages) - which affects the Main Page. I promised to raise an RfC in the WQA thread, and here it is. I am also supporting this position. To be clear, this RfC is not about specific user behavior, rather about a implementing an ArbCom decision that recognizes that there are particular general issues with the ARBPIA topic area that require extra-care on the part of involved editors. Any issues with particular users - if any - should be addressed via the usual DR channels. Cerejota (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Why is an RfC necessary, and what does this have to with ITN? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks Cerejota for posting this. If I posted in RFC it might seem less credible. Editors who are curious can skim through the links report included by Cerejota. Jim doesn't seem to think this issue is about ARBPIA, but I do since he has invoked numerous mentions about Israel/Palestine in ITN (like suggesting ITN editors are accepting the narratives of the Israeli government). The issue I feel is a certain level of hostility leveled against my status as a user, rather than my contributions. One example. This was my first comment in a recent ITN proposal: *Oppose Flawed and POV blurb. Mention of report is too ambiguous. Blurb should be about the Palmer Commission, the details (that embarrassed Turkey) led to the Israeli ambassador being expelled. Although Turkey threatened to expel Israel's ambassador for not apologizing over the flotilla incident well before the Palmer Report was leaked. IF anything, the blurb should state the UN's finding explicitly - that Israel's blockade was legal and does not constitute an act of collective punishment (straight from the report). Blurb is not only one-sided but factually inaccurate. Jim's response: There's some not-so-subtle POV-pushing going on here under the guise of neutrality. I don't think we have the perfect blurb, but I'm not going to let Wikifan use my comment to push his agenda (once again). So let me state for the record that I support posting this item. My response: As I noted above, quite clearly, the blurb should include both statements. The current blurb is blatantly false - Turkey did not expel Israel's ambassador because of this report, they expelled the ambassador because Israel refused to apologize over the flotilla raid. It would be better to simply post the Palmer Report rather than have a one-sided Turkey blurb. Yeah Jim, again with your dubious accusations of "POV-pushing." Please take your insinuation to the appropriate noticeboards with proof. Stop poisoning the discussion with personal attacks. Jim's response: No, I'm not going to take my discussion of this nomination anywhere else. If you repeatedly make inappropriate remarks and accusations in this section, you ought to expect to be called out for it here. Quite recently one of our most frequent contributors Lihaas (a very solid editor whom I respect) was blocked, justifiably, by an admin for turning this place into a political forum. While you have not reached that level of soapboxing, your continued politicizing of what should be a neutral discussion of significance and your provocative comments aimed at other editors (those presumably with opposite political views) are very close to being just as disruptive. This is not a political arena where you can start a crusade against allegedly "one-sided" blurbs. That kind of behavior might be acceptable at an article's talk page, provided that you back up your claims with reliable sources. But this is an internal discussion. This is where a bunch of very professional editors and admins work around the clock to get things posted on time. Your politicizing of every nomination that pertains to your area of interest, and your endless accusations of "POV" bias against other users who you know nothing about, are wasting a lot of their time that could be better spent on nominating more items or updating the articles. Plus it's immensely frustrating to deal with and, I presume, quite a bit frustrating for the users that you have accused of various kinds of heinous behavior. My response: Jim, I think you might be projecting here. It is you who constantly accused editors of "POV-pushing. I did not accuse any editors of POV pushing. I said the blurb was flawed (it is), factually inaccurate (it is), and not neutral (a.k.a POV). I then provided proof to support my reasoning. Instead of responding to my reasoning, you attack me as an editor once again. This just embarrassing Jim. So I'm not sure how Jim can to all those conclusions based on my original short response to the posting. Do other users get the same vibe after reading my comment? Have I politicized the nomination? Made "endless" accusations of POV bias against specific users? Any crusade-like attitude to my presence? To be clear, my point that the blurb was inaccurate was later endorsed by another user. Repeat: The blurb was wrong - factually. Turkey did not expel the ambassador because of the report, but because Israel didn't apologize. WikifanBe nice 19:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC) So why are we having an RfC? This is about your argument with a single editor, that's not general discussion of the In the news section (see editnotice). It should go to AE, or back to WQA, or to ANI or somewhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Harry, please close this. Cerejota posted this with the disclaimer "this RfC is not about specific user behavior" and Wikifan12345 has now turned it into an RFC/U on JimSukwutput. ARBPIA is clear. It can be imposed on any editor who has been formally notified of its existence and knowingly violates its measures. Since Wikifan12345 has been notified, he is subject to it. This doesn't need a discussion. Nightw 19:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Issue is about multiple users, do you not see my own comments in this RFC? If I only listed Jim that would be bad. WikifanBe nice 20:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)I disagree with closing. The idea of the RfC is to empower any uninvolved admin to notify of sanctions as per WP:ARBPIA and to enforce the sanctions. For example, Wikifan is subjected to the sanctions, but since it is not clear this is a topic area if the thread is about ARBPIA stuff, no action can be taken. That Wikifan is not sticking to the topic at hand (and should as such delete all the stuff about Jim) is no reason not to have this RfC closed. It is in WT:ITN because this is about ITN. D'oh! This is legit request, that should be processed as such, not to be dismissed simply because a poster disagrees with it.--Cerejota (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Well I have never participated in an RFC like this and my edits were made in good faith here. If HM think this is the wrong place for the discussion, I won't oppose a close. I left a message at Jim's talk suggesting this whole thing just stop because at the end of the day it really isn't a huge deal. WikifanBe nice 20:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC reopened at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement/Israel-Palestine_articles#RfC:_Should_WP:ITN_area_discussions_on_items_in_the_WP:ARBPIA_topic_area_be_subjected_to_WP:ARBPIA_itself.3F--Cerejota (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 World Championships in Athletics

Seems like we have a consensus to post this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Plane crash?

It's not encyclopedic, is it? a plane is a woodworking tool. The correct encyclopedic term is aircraft (i.e. a craft that travels through the air). We shouldn't be using colliquialisms on the Main Page. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There are thousands of news article hits and millions of web hits for "plane crash". To my mind it is a mainstream usage and not colloquial. I'd say that "plane", "airplane", and "aircraft" would all be acceptable. Dragons flight (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

For the blurb's purposes, "airplane" is undesirable because much of the English-speaking world instead says "aeroplane" (but we share the abbreviation "plane," using the term "plane crash" far more commonly than "airplane crash" and "aeroplane crash" combined).

"Aircraft" is significantly less specific; this category also comprises numerous other vehicles (such as helicopters and airships). —David Levy 11:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that the article to which you linked is titled Plane (tool). Plane is a disambiguation page, the first item of which is "aeroplane or airplane."

I don't understand why you regard the term "plane crash" as unencyclopedic or colloquial; it's used by reliable English-language sources around the world. —David Levy 11:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Rugby World Cup

Why no mention of the start of the World Cup on the In The News Section? It is one of the biggest International Sporting Events this year, and surely deserves a place? Kiwibeca (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The final will be posted. Generally we leave openings of major sporting events to only the Olympic Games, and continental Games. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we've also posted the football world cup opening too. But yes, generally only the finals of major tournaments go up. Modest Genius ^talk 17:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Earth Overshoot Day

Ecological Debt Day is September 27, 2011.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

For the next (2012) Earth Overshoot/Ecological Debt Day, you may want to try Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries. --PFHLai (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Troy Davis

To be fair, if the so-called "worldwide opposition" is mentioned, the blurb should identify him as "convicted cop-killer", so as not to be biased to one side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.168.194 (talk) 23:22, September 22, 2011

There might have been "worldwide support" as well, especially in fellow countries that have both advanced western judicial systems and the death penalty (eg Malaysia, Singapore). Hopeless POV. Why not the alternative suggestion at ITN/C:

Troy Davis, convicted of a 1989 murder, is executed by the U.S. state of Georgia, after a series of high-profile appeals and calls for clemency fail. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Support this. The current blurb is obviously slanted. Swarm ^{u / t} 20:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No country has gone out of their way to support that particular execution, while quite a few have adamantly voiced their opposition. In other words I don't see the "worldwide support" you're dreaming of. Reanimated X (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Pope and Desmond Tutu do not speak for the world. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

But I do believe the UN does - UN experts call on US Government: stop Troy Davis execution, CNN, World shocked by U.S. execution of Troy Davis. Reanimated X (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, three UN Special Rapporteurs. That changes everything! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've provided sources showing clearly that UN officials, Germany, France, the UK, the EU, several high profile international organizations and figures have opposed the execution. You have yet to provide any. Reanimated X (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I reworded the item, but I wasn't sure what was meant by "a series of high-profile appeals and calls for clemency". Is the word "appeals" here meant to refer to court appeals, or just appeals for clemency (which seems to me to be what a "call" is). I assumed it was the former. I also moved "high-profile" to just refer to the calls for clemency because it sounds to me like the calls for clemency are what are really high-profile (foreign governments, the Pope, etc.). And then I wasn't sure whether the "series" referred to just the court appeals or the calls for clemency as well. I assumed the latter, and so put fails instead of fail. Yeah, let's just say that wording was ambiguous. -- tariqabjotu 20:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Americans execute hundreds of convicted people every year, so of course he's convicted. That doesn't need to be said. That also doesn't mean he did it. Most executions don't attract international attention. This one did, for obvious reasons. THAT is the difference. HiLo48 (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly how are arguments weighed at ITN/C?

If there's one thing I've noticed about WP:ITN that makes it different from the rest of Wikipedia, it's that it seems to be largely detached or tangential to the fundamental policies that guide the creation and maintenance of Wikipedia articles. So as a result, while scrolling through some of the potential candidates, I am seeing the same arguments for/against posting an ITN candidate being stated, each with varying amounts of success:

• "We posted this, therefore we should post that."/"We didn't post this, therefore we can't post that."
• "Posting this is not a reason why we should post that."
• "We already get too much sports/entertainment news as it is."/"We're not a tabloid."
• "It's getting international coverage."/"It's not getting international coverage."
• "This disaster wasn't as big as the one that happened three years ago in the same area."
• "It's too U.S/U.K./other-first-world-country centric."
• "It doesn't mean anything in the long run."
• "I've heard of it."/"I've never heard of it."
• "It's not peer-reviewed."/"It's peer-reviewed."

Reading through the arguments myself, I see a trend of subjectivity; namely judgment calls as to whether or not an article is worth posting. I'm not sure if this is what is intended with the WP:ITN/C process? Furthermore, I can't really find any definitive criteria for whether something is worth posting, simply that it's in the news, that there's an article about it, and said article is sufficiently updated (note that many candidates that meet these criteria are still excluded). I think we'd solve a lot of problems and issues if we firmly laid down what is necessary for something to be posted, rather than rely entirely on subjective analysis, which is going to result in certain articles being (or not being) featured based on who happens to show up to discuss a candidacy. As it currently stands, I have the feeling that many administrators who make the final call as to whether something should be posted simply count the "Support/Oppose" ratio, as that's really all they can do given the monumental amount of discretion afforded to them.--WaltCip (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I just found out the people here didn't post Typhoon Nesat (2011), that caused the deaths of 67 people. If that happened in Ireland, a 1-sentence article would've been posted immediately. lol –HTD 03:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, it would have, because Category-3 hurricanes are extremely uncommon in Ireland. And that, I must say, is a textbook example of why kneejerk comments alleging a white/Anglo conspiracy are often misplaced. Context is a huge part of what makes an item newsworthy. I understand that some people want particular events in sub-Saharan Africa to be posted in the same manner and frequency equivalent events are posted from the U.S. or Western Europe. But sorry, Internet Justice Man, we live in the real world, where context, including geographic location, matters. -- tariqabjotu 04:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So, is that one of the rules? What are the others? You see, that post was a perfect example of what WaltClip is talking about. It may make sense at the time, but it's sort of out of the blue. WaltClip makes a very sensible point. There lots of repeated arguments, on both sides of many proposed items. Something seems to be wrong. Can we fix it? HiLo48 (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, as an admin who occassionally posts things to ITN, let me explain what factors will lend themselves to my posting of an article. My primary criteria is to weigh the arguements in support and in opposition based on the criteria spelled out at Wikipedia:In_the_news#Criteria, where such arguments are supported by the evidence presented in the reliable sources. Arguements which, in light of the criteria at WP:ITN, I find compelling include, in no particular order:

• Significant consensus to post (doesn't have to be unanimous, but not 51% either, ideally something in the middle)
• Article is of "decent" quality (i.e. not a stub, but it doesn't have to be GA/FA either. Just no glaring errors or bad writing or bad formatting and stuff. This is the main page, after all)
• ITN blurb "fact" is well covered (paragraph or so minimum) and scrupulously referenced in the article itself.
• Evidence of news coverage of the event which is national/international in scope (i.e. major news organizations/wire services, not local newspaper/TV stations alone)
• ITN/R events I will tend to post with a few supports if the quality of the article and the quality of the update is sufficient.

The following things I specifically discount when judging consensus and/or deciding to post to the main page:

• Arguments which are based on geographic scope are usually discounted in most cases, such as arguments that something should not be posted because its interest is limited to a specific geographic area. The compelling thing is the scope of the news coverage of the event, rather than the scope of the event itself. Insofar as Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, if reliable sources in feel that something is a worthwhile story, then our own personal opinions about whether or not it should be worthwhile aren't all that important. Either the news outlets feel it is significant, or it isn't.
• Arguments which are based on numerical or statistical impact of an event are also usually discounted. If the article is quality, if the update is enough, and if the news coverage is national/international in scope and ongoing and deep then the event is ITN worthy even if it has not meet some imaginary threshold. It is not Wikipedia's role to decide how many deaths is the minimum number for a disaster to be deemed newsworthy. ITN should reflect (in part) the newsworthiness that the reliable sources give to an event (along with the quality of the Wikipedia article and update to said article regarding said event).
• Arguments about events which have been posted in the past (or have not been posted) are also discounted, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That a particular similar event was posted, or that a particular similar event was not, doesn't seem like a compelling arguement either way.

Again, weight is given to supports and oppositions which argue a) the significance of the event as evidenced by what reliable sources show the significance to be (as opposed to what the voter personally feels the significance is) and b) the quality of the article and the updated content. The reason that weight is given to arguements based on these factors is because that is what is laid out at WP:ITN. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. --Jayron32 05:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's good, but since you cited consensus, and people here built up imaginary rules and thresholds RFA would look tame, I don't think you'd accomplish what you'd want on the your second group of bullet points. –HTD 06:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia

I notice that the it:wp event was added and then removed without a link to discussion, and I can't find a discussion here. Why was it removed? I have no opinion about whether removal is good or bad; it's simply the complete lack of discussion or the obscurity of the discussion that I find problematic. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is on WP:ITN/C#October 4. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Individual items seem to be further discussed on WP:ITN/C instead of here now, with each event also being marked as to whether it is "posted" or "pulled". Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Long story very short, the consensus debate reopened after most of us thought it was closed. - Tenebris 06:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm, okay; I'm more familiar with DYK, where the template talk page is used to discuss the individual components of its contents, and the ITN template talk page redirects here, so I'd guessed that any discussion should have gone here. Nyttend (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

For this very reason, it is ridiculous for items to be pulled once they are posted. It confuses and obfuscates readers, especially if there is a lack of discussion. What we need around here is some consistency to keep things orderly.--WaltCip (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Consensus can change is a core value of this project, not to mention the fact (which isn't applicable for the Italian Wikipedia but has been for other stories in the past) that the significance of a story can diminish rapidly. For instance, what was feared to be a deadly hurricane dying out into an off-shore tropical storm. Besides, we constantly moan that ITN goes stale: no-one can accuse it of that over the past day. —WFC—

Absolutely. It can be perfectly reasonable to pull stories in certain situations. The pulling admin should indicate that the discussion is at ITNC, but beyond that, it's really not a big deal. Swarm 17:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Criteria: Updated content

This is a silly rule. What about abolishing it?--Kozuch (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Highlighting new content is the very reason ITN exists: it is not intended to be a news source. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC).

Right. Abolishing that rule would make sense if our purpose would be to post news stories as soon as possible. However, we're not a news ticker; our purpose is to showcase articles, and, like any other part of Wikipedia that does this (be it TFA or DYK), certain standards have to be met. Our requirements aren't that strict, and requiring our articles to be up-to-date is an important rule that's not remotely unreasonable. Regards, Swarm 21:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Room for one more?

There has been discussion recently at Wikipedia talk:Did you know about the possibility of going from 6 hooks to seven in each set of DYKs. (The number of hooks in each set and the frequency of updates had been reduced due to a shortage of candidate hooks. The hook supply has increased somewhat no, so it should be possible to sustain larger hook sets again.) I believe this would allow ITN to feature at least one additional item. Would this change be acceptable to ITN? Would it be welcomed?? --Orlady (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it should not represent a major problem, the consequence would be that the items would generally stay on MP longer. Actually, the length of the ITN box usually follows the TFA, with removing oldest items for short TFAs and adding old ones if we need more to keep balance. --Tone 17:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ITN is already rather flexible on the number of items, since it has to adapt to the different lengths of the Today's Featured Article blurb. However, since this affects the overall length of the whole main page, it should probably be discussed at T:MP rather than here and WT:DYK. Oh and most of the balancing would be best to come from Selected Anniversaries, because of the horizontal lines. Modest Genius ^talk 18:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes

In "updated content"

The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient.

to

The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient.

and in "Deaths", remove the text

In addition, the article must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death (in accordance with ITN updating criteria) and the article as a whole must be B-class and/or be satisfactorily filled out with no major omissions of the person's life and effect.

Reasons': I think it is a significant issue that, quite frequently, ITN suffers from confusion as to how an article should be updated. The consensus process is there to protect against rank stupidity, but there are certain types of event that don't always carry with them a lot of opportunity for updating, even though they are ITN-worthy. Awards are one example, but deaths can be another. Creating a whole section to cover a person's death may sometimes be an excellent idea. But sometimes it might also result in the inclusion of a pointless short list of reactions from colleagues, just to fulfil the updating criteria. Another good example is the recent decision of Saudi Arabia to grant women the vote. Obviously appropriate for ITN, but SA is quite a closed society, so all there really was to update was the fact that it happened and a reaction from Amnesty International. Additionally, WP had no information about the history of voting and women's participation in Saudi Arabia, so a substantial amount of content was created. This isn't really considered an "update", but probably should be in those types of circumstance.

Ta. --FormerIP (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose the first one. A single sentence update or a simple verb tense change is still 'highly questionable'. That doesn't mean we can't allow them every now and again, but only in exceptional circumstances.

Weak oppose the second; I would support getting rid of a specific section and the requirement for B class, but I still think a several sentence update should be required. If the person was indeed significant, it won't be hard to find reaction to their death.

I agree that the expansion of e.g. the Saudi voting articles can be counted as part of the update, but disagree that changing the criteria in the way you advocate would help. Modest Genius ^talk 19:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Cascading protection of Template:In the news

I note Template:In the news currently has cascading protection set. I'm not sure what was intended by doing so, but it is probably not doing what you actually intend and is therefore worse than useless. The important parts of the template are already covered by virtue of being transcluded onto the Main page; the only thing covered by the cascading protection on this template that is not covered by Main page is this template's documentation, which is contrary to the intent of a template documentation subpage. See also further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#/doc subpages of cascade-protected templates.

Unless anyone has a good reason why this template should itself have cascading protection instead of relying on cascading from Main page to cover the important bits, I will remove the cascading from this template soonish. Anomie⚔ 14:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Archive

I've just noticed that we haven't had archives of ITN stories since June... If anyone has some free time, writing that would be appreciated. --Tone 14:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Events of same type as previous major ones

I've been following the In-the-news box eagerly for years, and I think it's excellent. However, one flaw I've noticed is its tendency to include events of relatively low interest but that are somewhat similar in nature to another recent major event. I don't want to give individual examples of what have been such relatively low interest events, but a typical example of a recent major event could have been "An earthquake kills 1000 people", followed a couple of days later by the relatively low interest event of "An earthquake in (another country) leaves 2 people injured". Perhaps the underlying mechanism for this tendency is that the previous major event leaves editors to believe that earthquakes are interesting, and indeed they are sometimes, but in fact there are also earthquakes that are relatively less interesting when comparing to everything else that happens in the world, which motivates to be extra careful when dealing with similar events in the near future after any major event. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to deal with issues when you don't give actual examples. But are you referring to 2011 Virginia earthquake being posted despite a lack of impact? If so that was posted partially the rarity of an earthquake striking in that area. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to that event particularly, but if you want a specific example I can return later when I've found a potential one in the news template, because I don't know where to see the entire list of past entries. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Image protection

Given that they appear on the main page, aren't images in ITN supposed to be fully protected, same as with DYK and TFA? I ask this because the 787 image isn't (and, for that matter, the picture of General Khan isn't either...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I checked the 787 image - it's protected both locally and on Commons, both via cascading protection. Modest Genius ^talk 22:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please pull Palestine 194

Per WP:ANI#Extensive copyright violations by User:Night w, it appears that there is a very significant chance that significant portions of much of Palestine 194 are copyright violations. I'm not comfortable editing the template by myself, having no familiarity with any Main Page process; hopefully an ITN member sees this ASAP. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the copyright concern is only Palestine 194 can we put back the news and just take out the link to that article? I think that's what Qwyrxian asked for. We can bold the link to Member states of UNESCO instead. Tachfin (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That article is not sufficiently updated per ITN criteria, so no. -- tariqabjotu 07:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok how about Member states of UNESCO#Admission of Palestine? I'll post a note for other users to improve it. Please post if you deem it up to the standards. Tachfin (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks alright to post; doing so now. — Joseph Fox 12:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Old news on element names

Isn't the item "The elements darmstadtium, roentgenium and copernicium are named ..." very old news? /95.209.209.35 (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree: IUPAP confirms that it accepts the names that IUPAC issued ages ago is not major news. Have proposed a rephrasing of ITN/R, because the repetition seems to emanate from the text there. Kevin McE (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Minority topic abuse

We seem to be getting more and more posts of late that incorrectly assert ITNR or minority topic status. With ITNR it is usually pretty clear-cut but minority topics are somewhat more open to interpretation. I propose the docs (and comments) for the ITN Candidate template are adjusted to require an explanation of which minority topic criterion is being asserted for a given entry. Does anyone have any objections or other comments? Crispmuncher (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC).

people would just have to follow what is stated in WP:ITN#Minority topics to the letter. –HTD 10:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

After some thought I figured that would probably simply be ignored so I've experimented with something more substantial in the form of a more extensively modified template. It's still in userspace but feel free to have a play with User:Crispmuncher/ITN Candidate/Sandbox. Revised docs to reflect changes are at User:Crispmuncher/ITN Candidate. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC).

LILP

Can we please delete Template:In the news/Important living people? It's useless. Consensus should determine a person's "importance" if and when that person's death is nominated. In addition to being useless, it's also not in use. It's not part of WP:ITN/DC and has zero transclusions. Nightw 11:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. When it comes to that, each nomination is evaluated separately and being on some list does not facilitate the discussion. Not to mention it is incomplete in its scope. --Tone 12:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be marked with {{historical}}, rather than deleted. It's certainly not in use, and nor should it be, but someone might want to refer back to it at some point - if only as an example of why this idea doesn't work. Modest Genius ^talk 13:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Marked as such. --Tone 18:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Pine Island Bay

I attempted to explain the significance of the event, though no other editors responded after that comment. Why did that happen? ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 01:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal

If/when Joe Paterno resigns, we've got to have it in ITN. For those of you not familiar with American sports, imaging God resigning due to a sex-abuse scandal. I'd guess JoePa is America's most famous living sports coach; he's been in charge at Penn State since 1966. 8,193 articles on Google News right now. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Expect flak from the "down with American sports" crowd, but I agree, this is huge. For the Brits out there, this is akin to Alex Ferguson being tarnished by a child sex abuse scandal. --Jayron32 23:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well nominate it if and when it actually happens and we'll see. Nothing is going to happen about it here. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC).

I'm betting the usual "suspects" will oppose, and that this won't be posted <evil mad scientist laugh> –HTD 04:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Imagin[e] God resigning due to a sex-abuse scandal? You've got to be kidding me. This is the kind of sentiment that fuels the remarks that some Americans don't have perspective. -- tariqabjotu 22:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. We all know God didn't have the stones to own up to what his representatives do with little boys. At least JoePa can be fired for it. --Golbez (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, Paterno isn't being accused of anything, except that he may not have done enough from a moral standpoint by reporting his assistant coach to Penn State and not the authorities. Grandmasterka 04:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• It's nominated at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Penn_State_football_scandal. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)