Wikipedia talk:In the news

Adopting one guideline from DYK

In light of the O.J. Simpson RD blurb (this is not to question whether it should be posted, that's a separate issue), the blurb itself is extremely questionable as it puts too much focus on his criminal history.
DYK has a guideline at WP:DYKHOOKBLP that says Hooks must adopt a neutral point of view. Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. Note that this is a stricter requirement than BLP as a whole: a sentence that might be due weight in the article can become undue if used in the hook, as all of the surrounding context of the individual's wider life is missing." Given that we are in a similar situation that we only have one sentenece to describe a topic (normal news blurb or death blurb) and thus can't give further context, we should adopt a similar principle.
Note that this is when the negative aspects are not the main story (as in the case of the O.J. blurb). If the news story is about the negative factor, such as with a key criminal conviction/sentencing, we really can't avoid that if there's otherwise support for the topic. But we shouldn't be forcing in negative (or even positive) factors related to BLP where they aren't the key highlight of the story. — Masem (t) 12:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Support this, and I'm surprised it's not already a guideline given the BLP implications of it. I suggest it should also include recently dead people for, well, recent deaths. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BDP, BLP policy extends to the recently deceased and clear those we'd include on ITN due to the 7 day period. — Masem (t) 13:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I know, but it's better to make it explicit as I've seen a comment on OJ's nomination saying that WP:BDP wouldn't apply to legal issues. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That exposes more issues around the OK blurb that I don't think are relavant to this discussion. As a hypothetical that distances itself from those issues, let's say that when Putin dies (who is one I'd definitely list as a great figure due to his impact on history even if that was mostly seen as net negative to the world and thus likely would have a blurb) it is reasonable to identify him as the former Russian president, but it would be inappropriate in our blurb to go on to say things like dictator, warmonger, etc. — Masem (t) 14:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree. My point is that it should be written in the guideline that this applies in the same way to recent deaths, as it is not necessarily obvious to everyone. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK hooks are mostly trivia with no respect towards WP:DUE, so it's understandable there. On the other hand, ITN blurbs need to be neutral (WP:NPOV), which might require negative points. Per the policy WP:YESPOV:

As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.

There's no way OJ's blurb should be neutered to only say "American football Hall of Fame running back O.J. Simpson dies."—Bagumba (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem that is common to DYK is that we have limited context to explain anything that may be tied to a POV. Articles have room for the required context, but a single sentence blurb does not. And without going into other problems with the OK blurb, if it is actually impossible to write a neutral RD blurb, that's likely a good reason not to have that as a blurb, and instead let the normal RD process apply. (I intend to open a separate discussion on the other issues with the OJ blurb later, but this can be handled as a separate issue) — Masem (t) 14:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that "it's impossible to write a neutral RD blurb". If we managed to decide multiple notable roles to blurb for someone like English singer, songwriter and producer David Bowie dies at the age of 69[1], then it's no different to decide that OJ was notable for more than just playing football. —Bagumba (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

None of those descriptors for Bowie are negative nor positive terms, they are objective descriptors. A better point would be Higgs, we're the blurb i( which I may have written, so I'm guilty here) mentions being a Nobel winner, which is an unduly focus on a positive term compared to calling him a physist.
Unless the person was only notable for negative actions (such as Bin Laden), we should avoid negative or positive descriptors in blurbs. — Masem (t) 15:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I continue to think it's misplaced to focus on "positive" or "negative" instead of WP:YESPOV's guidance to determine purely what is due. —Bagumba (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The whole NPOV is great for article space when there is room to give context, add references and necessary attribution, etc. But ITN is like DYK or category pages where we do T have the means to give context or references, who h is why these have more carefully crafted BLP concerns. We should be operating in the same manner for our blurbs. — Masem (t) 16:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The news is often "unduly focused on negative aspects" of people, living and recently deceased. Say Trump gets convicted of some crimes. I imagine that has a strong chance of passing ITN/C for a blurb. How would that work with DYKHOOKBLP? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That's what I implied that if the conviction is actually the news event, writing about that would not be unduly, since we are specifically focusing on the news story that is the event. If Trump is convicted, and then far down the road he dies, including anything related to the conviction in a death blurb would be unduly (barring anything that may happen in the future) — Masem (t) 15:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I would support adding a DYKHOOKBLP-style criterion for ITN items. I disagree that the Simpson item unduly focuses on negative aspects, but it's a matter for reasonable debate. A debate worth having. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the whole premise of this discussion. OJ Simpson's criminal history is the only reason he was still a household name outside the US. It's what obituaries focused on. It's why his death made the news internationally. Hiding that from the blurb would be presenting an utterly biased view.Khuft (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The separate issue is that RD blurbs that are primarily based on fame or imfamity do not fit any of the of the RD blurb criteria. I don't want to start that discussion here, which is why I bring up the case of some like Putin or Bin Laden as more practical examples where an RD blurb would not be just because of fame. — Masem (t) 19:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Respectfully, I'm not seeing the concern here. Are there examples of POV issues with blurbs that you've found? I think we generally keep it fairly neutral, and when we don't, it is generally because the non-neutral point is a central piece of the story. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but don't confuse non-neutral to mean having any negative elements. WP:WIKIVOICE says

  Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize.

  That does not mean we are only to blurb about his football career or that we shy away from blurbing anything at all.—Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is, in addition to the issue of why OJ was even blurbed, that the language reads as a "Good riddance" in WP's voice by mixing objective statements (football player and actor) with the negativity-toned language, even if it is true. That's an embrassment on the front page. Masem (t) 03:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Depends on one's perspective. There's a set of people that see it as a positive, believing it was a rarity that a Black person was not framed by racist and inept authorities. At any rate, it's factual that he was a murder suspect, and it's WP:DUE to state it as a major part of his notability. It's not reasonable to call him just a football player. That he was convicted of robbery is undisputed, though I was fine with that not going into the blurb, believing it was secondary to his notability.—Bagumba (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  What should have gone in the blurb were things about the O.J. Simpson of April 2024. What kind of cancer he'd been dying from, how long it took and where it finally killed him. There'd have been no need to rehash anything from the 1970s, '80s, 90s or '10s if we'd treated this as hard news rather than eulogy, fan service or virtue signalling. The descriptor "O.J. Simpson" is enough to let anyone even half familiar with the guy know which one we mean, and had been for years before the What, Why, When and Where made him finally blurbworthy. If we're just going to list the negative/positive aspects of any major figure's life over Death itself, we may as well start doing it for those who are elected or win awards, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  O.J. was one of those unique public figures for whom, in order to frame their life in the proper context, you really needed to take the bulk of their entire professional career and personal life from that timeframe you mentioned (even the 60s, to an extent, when he played football for USC). It is nearly impossible to describe his impact with just a handful of words, and people should read the article -- or better yet, go watch the 30 for 30 documentary. But even as impactful as he was, he was an incredibly polarizing public figure, so in order to maintain neutrality, this is a situation in which less is actually more. I do agree that in the blurb, we should have just called him a "football player and actor" and have been done with it. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps there needs to be a discussion at NPOV about these one-sentence scenarios on how to neutrally describe somebody without have any other way to provide immediate context. Like with OJ, while most Americans likely will associate the name with his legal problems, there was more to his career that are given cleanly by neutral terms and require no further context to be neutral, while saying he was a murder suspect should require addition context to explain that neutrally. In contrast, a person like Osama Bin Laden only was notably known as a terrorist leader, we'd likely describe as a terrorist leader in a one sentence blurb since there is no neutral term that could be used. That's why it's probably important to recognize NPOV and things like DUE apply to article space but their use outside that like the Main Page is not as clear, and why we should have similar concerns as DYK in how one sentence blurbs are written towards BLP. — Masem (t) 23:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  The "neutral" form of "terrorist" has traditionally been "militant". The "positive" spin is something like "freedom fighter" or "soldier of the Caliphate" ("rebel" has also been "pretty cool" since 1977, for various reasons). If Osama bin Laden died today, I'd like to think we'd call him a suspected terrorist leader. Of course, if he did die today, no "reliable source" would care to print it, but per BLPCRIME/BDP, he's still technically presumed innocent.

  As for O.J. Simpson, I maintain the most neutral blurb would have been O.J. Simpson (pictured) dies at 76 of pancreatic cancer in Las Vegas. We don't need to specify Nevada or the United States, people who know something about the Juice are assumed to know the general whereabouts of Vegas. Forgive my "negativity", but you're all crazy if you think "American football player and actor" doesn't have a positive connotation. You can get free drinks (and more) pretty much anywhere in the country (and others) following that introduction. If you just give the proprietor what basic information comes with an everyday credit card, you get served like any other patron, nice and impartial-like.

  Anyway, what's done is done. I'll try to complain louder and more efficiently before "the rest of you nuts" publish something this unfit to print again next time. Cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  There isn't any positive connotation with "football player" or "actor" as those are vocations he was paid to work in. If we were using terms like "savant", "business magnate", or "philanthropist", that's overly positive terms that sit on the opposite side of neutral compared with "suspected murderer". In article space, where we can devote to dozens of sources to back those terms up to show they are objective terms, they are non-neutral terms that are wholly appropriate. In one-line sentences absent any other context, they are non-neutral terms that we should avoid using, in favor of neutral and objective descriptors, such as vocations. Masem (t) 00:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  When a household name is a household name because of the double murder or embassy bombing suspicions, though, listing instead only the jobs a more niche audience might have loved them for before is certainly not neutral. It's like whitewashing. If you just call O.J. Simpson O.J. Simpson (or whomever whomever), you avoid having to paint him one way or another. If there's some concern that people won't recognize him or her by name and photo alone, then we're not dealing with a "major figure" and would need a good story about death itself. Regardless... InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  But I would argue in the case of OJ, his career as a football player or as a minor actor were non-trivial in terms of notability, and while to a fair number of Americans and probably Europeans will know OJ better from the legal troubles, that doesn't mean the rest of the world knows him as that. Pushing that he was only notable for the legal problems is a RGW problem we shouldn't be engaging in in this case. If we had a paragraph to explain all that, then it would make sense to include it, but we don't.

  And your last point is the primary issue with the OJ blurb posting, regardless of this concern - he fits no aspect of being a "major figure" , and it was only being supported because he was "well-known" due to the legal issues. That's not why we should be posting RD blurbs in the first place. Masem (t) 04:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think winning a Heisman Trophy or being picked first in the NFL draft are trivial. If Simpson hadn't killed two people and written a book about it, he'd still be notable, just like Earl Campbell or Jim Plunkett. He just wouldn't be what non-fans like me know as a household name. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Trivial in the sense that in the long term, solely looking at his football career overall, he would not be considered a great figure like, say, Joe Montana. Nor would his acting career. Nor would his legal problems, compared to, say, Rodney King or George Floyd. That is not diminishing his notability (which qualifies for the RD line) but that our bar for being a great figure is meant to be very high, and should exemplify people that have contributed a great deal to society, even if that involves negative contributions (eg bin Laden). Just winning awards or landing in a hall of fame isn't the bar. Masem (t) 00:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I was under the impression you were arguing, in the case of OJ, his career as a football player or as a minor actor were non-trivial in terms of notability. Now I think you are saying his football career was trivial in the long term and that King and Floyd were known for their legal problems, so don't know how to proceed. Suffice to say, I don't believe there is a "bar". People vote as it suits them and admins post according to that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Neither King nor Floyd were known or notable for anything else besides their respective treatment by police and the subsequent riots/protests that erupted, just as bin Laden is known for nothing else beyond his ties to terrorism. (In all these cases we can document earlier parts of their lives but those parts alone would never have merited an article on WP) Simpsons has a notable career before his legal problems started. But even if you summed up his entire life, and even say that his legal problems were the majority of why he was notable (debatable but lets start there), he doesn't meet any of the three criteria for RD blurbs; being famous or having notoriety is not the same as being a great figure. Nor was his means of death significant (age and cancer gets a lot of people in the end). So there was a problem with editors !voting only based on fame or notoriety that is implied but not sufficiently expressed in ITN's guidelines. Masem (t) 01:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Stop putting words in my mouth, please. Again, I said Simpson was a household name because of the double murder (and his subsequent legal problems). Like all football players on Wikipedia, he would have already been notable for playing football. Just not a household name. I think notoriety and fame are more closely synonymous to greatness than "legal problems" is to getting beaten or held down by police, extrajudicially. Our guidelines aren't clear, period; if they were, people wouldn't be allowed to vote as it suits them. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  We should be posting based off of consensus, which is the only guidance that WP:ITNRDBLURB and its "sui generis basis" gives admins. OJ is dead, was blurbed, and rolled off days ago. His being blurbed is a WP:DEADHORSE. —Bagumba (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  But we have ongoing problems highlighted by OJ - neutrality of the blurb for one, and the flood of !votes for popular or well-known people that offset what we normally argue for at ITN (same cases as with Betty White and Carrie Fisher in the past). Obviously, I'm not arguing specifically about the OJ blurb, just that it provided an example of these problems that still happen. So no, that's not a DEADHORSE to use OJ as an example of what we can avoid in the future. Masem (t) 12:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  You wrote that he fits no aspect of being a 'major figure', which contradicts your later claim that you are not arguing specifically about the OJ blurb. —Bagumba (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  The "fits no aspect" part is a separate discussion that I have not yet started because I need to be able to frame and write to it appropriately related to blurbs that we are posting along the lines of fame or popularity or well-known-ness, of which OJ is just one example where that occurred.  Masem (t) 00:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this whole discussion is starting to read like "I don't like how the consensus went so let's please change the rules." We're discussing a sui generis issue that was solved in a sui generis way. Time to move on. (And we should rejoice about certain nominations drawing higher participation from the overall community, not damn it and try to prevent it.) Khuft (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Ariel Henry image

It's not on the Main Page (yet), but I see that File:Ariel Henry July 2023.jpg was added by Robertsky to Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection.[2]

However, it's original source [3] says "TODOS LOS DERECHOS LIBERADOS. SE PUEDEN REPRODUCIR, USAR Y DESCARGAR TODOS LOS CONTENIDOS, SIN ALTERARLOS Y CITANDO LA FUENTE. DIRECCIÓN DE PRENSA, PRESIDENCIA DE LA REPÚBLICA DE CHILE", which Google translates to (emphasis added) "ALL RIGHTS RELEASED. ALL CONTENTS CAN BE REPRODUCED, USED AND DOWNLOADED, WITHOUT ALTERING THEM AND CITIING THE SOURCE." I think we require images to be free to be altered. So it seems this image should not go on the MP.

The Commons page is protected from pt.wikipedia as well, so I can't start a deletion discussion on Commons.—Bagumba (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba I added it because I wanted to rotate to this photo after the sufficient time has lapsed for the previous photo. It is not up on the main page yet, but if licensing is an issue, let's drop the idea. I think the deletion discussion can still be started. It is a matter of Commons admin helping to place the notice banner on the File page. – robertsky (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The "nominate for deletion" link on Commons fails becuase it's protected. However, I nominated the picture it was extracted from, File:El Presidente de Chile Gabriel Boric junto al Primer Ministro de Haití Ariel Henry.jpg.—Bagumba (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Posted an alternative image—Bagumba (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel ya Forger-Wiki (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Timeline of Israel-Hamas war

Hello! Could we have also a link to the timeline of the Israel-Hamas war? Otherwise it is tricky to find how this war is changing.

Right now there is one for the Russian invasion and another one for Sudan. So I guess it would be more consistent.

I am not skilled enough to try myself.

Best! 93.34.8.202 (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• The OP IP has a point. Currently we list four wars in Ongoing like this:

Israel–Hamas war, Myanmar civil war, Russian invasion of Ukraine (timeline), War in Sudan (timeline)

But all these wars have timeline pages so it seems quite inconsistent to display timelines for some but not others. The missing timelines include Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war, which has several subsidiary timeline pages, and Timeline of the Myanmar civil war (2021–present).

I've made a nomination to get this discussed.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Y A link has been added now. Thanks for the suggestion. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the Myanmar civil war was removed from the Ongoing list? GigaDerp (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

An idea for RD Blurb guidance, defining what doesn't qualify

Instead of trying to be more explicit as to when an RD qualifies for a urn, perhaps we could add a short list of reasonings that, in isolation of any other argument, are not considered sufficient for a blurb.
For example, using a current nom, simply winning a Nobel or the like, or being awarded with multiple awards, isn't sufficient on its own. Producing or being in lots of creative works wouldn't either, nor being like the first to do something significant or a being world record holder. Similarly, just being famous or a household name is not typically considered sufficient by itself. That's not say that these aspects would not contribute towards considering a blurb when coupled with other factors, but adopting some advice that narrows when we consider blurbs, rather than the inverse of trying to define explicit bounds, may be an easily way to help in RD blurb mom's. — Masem (t) 13:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to have such an "arguments to avoid" list. Maybe also "being an influence on famous people" could be in there, and also "but X had a death blurb, so Y should have one". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

People don't follow WP:ITN/C#Please do not... guidance as it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Id think that while there are those that inadvereny ignore these once in a while, having written do-nots we can point to as gentle reminds will help. — Masem (t) 16:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, ideally those votes should just be ignored by the admin considering posting. Not counting such votes should encourage people to provide better rationale. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:ITNRD says that major figures are determined on a sui generis basis. That doesnt give administrators much leeway to discount !votes, and doing so would be a WP:SUPERVOTE, barring more objective updates to WP:ITNRD. —Bagumba (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not how I would take sui generis here: that means we should not be comparing a blurb suggestion of one person to previous successful or failed nominations (each discussion of a blurb being its own unique thing). That doesn't mean some type of ground rules - like what we'd expect to see of a great figure, or what is typically not acceptable to support a great figure - can't be applied as long as those rules are applied generally and not from a comparative standpoint. Masem (t) 04:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but the community hasn't codified what those ground rules are for "major figures". —Bagumba (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"The community hasn't done it yet" is not an argument for, well, not doing it now. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 07:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't advocating one way or another. —Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 07:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Nobel prizes are given for a reason and that reason may well result in a blurb -- see Peter Higgs for a recent example. There's no formula for this; it just depends who shows up to vote. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Higgs wasn't posted just because he won a Nobel, which is the argument I'm trying to advocate here. The Nobel was but one facet behind him being a great figure (It is in hindsight that added "Nobel-winning" to the blurb probably wasn't appropriate but that's a wholly different matter) Masem (t) 11:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  The achievement for which he won the Nobel was pretty much the only reason he got a blurb. If he hadn't won the Nobel then he wouldn't have been blurbed. And it might have gone differently because there were six physicists in three groups who independently arrived at the same conclusion in the same year. So, he wasn't essential and it's mainly a matter of good fortune that his is the name that has become attached to the discovery.

  Alice Munro is having more trouble because she's not such a big name and literature is more subjective and a matter of taste. See Nobel Prize in Literature#Criticism for other issues. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)