Wikipedia talk:In the news

Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Apr-Jun)

Nearly a quarter the way through the year now. This post attempts to highlight potential nominations that could be considered and where else to continue looking for news items. The recurring items list is a good place to start. Below is a provisional list of upcoming ITN/R events over the next few months. This may omit items that happen around this time of year but have yet a fixed date - for example, the 2017 Stanley Cup Finals in mid-June. Some events may be announced earlier or later than scheduled, like the result of an election or the culmination of a sport season/tournament. Feel free to update these articles in advance and nominate them on the candidates page when they occur.

April

• 2 April:
  • Armenian parliamentary election, 2017
  • Serbian presidential election, 2017
  • The Boat Races 2017
  • Ecuadorian general election, 2017
• 3 April: 2017 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship Game
• 6 April: Gambian parliamentary election, 2017
• 8 April: 2017 Grand National
• 9 April:
  • 2017 Laurence Olivier Awards
  • 2017 Masters Tournament
• 17 April: 2017 Boston Marathon
• 23 April:
  • French presidential election, 2017
  • 2017 London Marathon

May

1 May: 2017 World Snooker Championship

3 May: Dadasaheb Phalke Award

4 May: Algerian legislative election, 2017

6 May: 2017 Kentucky Derby

9 May: South Korean presidential election, 2017

13 May:

• 2017 European Rugby Champions Cup Final
• Eurovision Song Contest 2017

19 May: Iranian presidential election, 2017

21 May:

• 2017 Indian Premier League Final
• Lebanese general election, 2017
• 2017 EuroLeague Final Four
• 2016–17 Premier League
• 2016 IIHF World Championship Final

27 May: 43rd G7 summit

28 May:

• 2017 Cannes Film Festival
• 2017 Indianapolis 500

June

3 June:

• Lesotho general election, 2017
• 2017 Epsom Derby
• 2017 UEFA Champions League Final

10 June: Expo 2017

11 June:

• 2017 French Open
• 71st Tony Awards

14 June: Man Booker International Prize

15 June: Electronic Entertainment Expo 2017

18 June:

• Albanian parliamentary election, 2017
• French legislative election, 2017
• 2017 24 Hours of Le Mans
• 2017 U.S. Open (golf)
• 2017 NBA Finals

21 June: International Dublin Literary Award

24 June: Turing Award

26 June: Mongolian presidential election, 2017

27 June: 2017 America's Cup

Other resources

Recent deaths can be found at Deaths in 2017 Upcoming elections can be found at National electoral calendar 2017 Upcoming solar eclipses can be found at List of solar eclipses in the 21st century Upcoming space launches may be found via an internet search News stories can be found at Portal:Current events For those who don't take their daily dose of news from an encyclopedia, breaking news stories can also be found via news aggregators (e.g. Google News, Yahoo! News) or your preferred news outlet. Some news outlets employ paywalls after a few free articles, others are funded by advertisements - which tend not to like ad blockers, and a fair few are still free to access. Below is a small selection: Newspapers The Australian The Globe and Mail The Guardian Haaretz The Hindu The New York Times South China Morning Post The Straits Times The Sydney Morning Herald The Daily Telegraph The Washington Post News agencies Associated Press (AP) Reuters Agence France-Presse (AFP) Agência Brasil Anadolu Agency Press Association TASS Yonhap Xinhua News services ABC News Al Jazeera AllAfrica.com BBC News CBC News CNN Deutsche Welle Euronews Unlike the prose in the article, the reference doesn't necessarily need to be in English. Non-English news sources include, but are not limited to: Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País. Which ironically are Western European examples (hi systemic bias). Any reliable African, Asian or South American non-English source that confirms an event took place can also be used.

Happy hunting. Fuebaey (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

On objecting to ITN/R items at ITN/C

If I remember correctly, the coincidence of two the intercollegiate sporting ITN/R items (The Boat Races and U.S. College basketball) causes much discussion about ITN/R every year and 2017 is shaping up no different. I'd suggest that editors who take issue with ITN/R review the list now, and raise notability discussions at WT:ITN/R at a time of the year when there is not an active ITN/C item pertaining to that item.

The point of having ITN/R is to dissociate the notability discussion (which can be done for these items without haste) from the preparation discussion at ITN/C (which is time-sensitive). This list isn't secret and, by their nature, ITN/R items aren't going to sneak up on us. In fact there is a listing above of those items that will occur in the next few months. Objections to items should be heard and obviously consensus can change regarding previous decisions. For the ease of working with the time-sensitive nature of ITN's remit, I'd implore editors to start such a WT:ITN/R discussion months in advance, rather than raising notability objections when they occur in WP:ITN/C. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the above, but keep in mind that in additional to objecting based on article quality, it is permissible to object to a specific instance of an ITNR due to triviality or the like under an IAR approach. The hypothetical example would be an election in a country where the incumbent ran virtually unchallenged, and to no one's surprise, they win the election with 99% of the vote. This might be a case where that specific election was just a blip on the news radar due to the situation, so this one time, the ITNR story is objected to; it doesn't meant the overarcing ITNR is wrong or needs to be changed. We do want to account for such situation. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

While this post is in good faith, it should be realised by now that it will do absolutely nothing to prevent those who vote against ITNRs from voting against ITNRs. Unless some kind of moratorium on voting against ITNRs is mandated for some period around the posting is sanctioned via an RfC, this is pretty pointless. You're preaching to the converted here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW I've had a quick look through the list and proposed (at WT:ITN/R) removing Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), but I stopped looking at that point (as I don't want to make multiple concurrent removal proposals) and so I haven't formed opinions about the sports entries. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've proposed removing The Boat Race from ITNR. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• Fine suggestion. Though of course, a consensus which appears to be in place as a result of piecemeal wikilawyering, systemic inertia, and out-and-out inconsistency, is more likely to fuel controversy than a consensus which has been achieved through openly and honestly debating the merits of a nomination.

  The whole point of ITNR is that it is presumed that notability consensus exists. An ITNR garnering significant opposition at ITNC would in and of itself be proof that said presumption was nonsensical. Given the naked inconsistency on display at ITNR, those less familiar with the ITN process coming to said conclusion on occasion is hardly surprising. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Posting admins should ignore oppose !votes for ITN/R items that object to the items inclusion rather than quality. Contributors who persistently WP:DISRUPT ITN/C by adding such opposes should be referred to AN/I for topic bans. Problem is, AN/I is more suited for bursts of egregious behavior not long running low level hostility and disruption. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment admins who persistently WP:DISRUPT ITN/R by nominating items which have been kept now four times in a couple of years should be referred to AN/I for topic bans. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

On systemic bias, "importance" and other things

Wikipedia has a problem with WP:Systemicbias. The thing is, failing to feature stories at WP:ITN doesn't help, anymore than painting over a crack in the foundation resolves the cause. The WP:ITN#Purpose of ITN is all about current events. It's time to stop trying to be an editorial board. WP:TFA doesn't require some sort of "global interest" (on paper, neither does ITN). Just stop it already, post stories with quality updates that are in the news. "We wouldn't post bar story if it happened in foo" so what? If a quality update about bar happening in foo were written you could. Just stop already with all of this "only of limited interest" (as if you know what WP:READERS are interested in). Just to recap: you're not solving the root cause of systemic bias at Wikipedia by screaming "systemic bias" at stories about regions/topics you feel are over-represented; all you're doing is a disservice to WP:READERS by ignoring WP:ITN#Purpose and failing:

• To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
• To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events.
• To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
• To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.

My two cents anyway. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

ITN is not a news ticker. We actually are fighting systematic with what we are doing to avoid too much focus on US-centric stories and sensational news that dominate the mass media nowadays. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, you're not "fighting" it at all, you're simply pretending it doesn't exist. Maybe WP:READERS care about "US-centric (whatever that means) stories". Maybe WP:READERS care about "sensational news (like random bombings in counties where bombings happen)". What you're absolutely 100% not doing in even the tiniest of ways is "fighting systemic bias". You fight it by writing and featuring articles about under represented regions, not by suppressing stories about "over represented" regions. Not helping at all, not even a little, just hurting, a lot. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Fighting systematic bias works both ways, both making sure we do not overly feature stories from overly represented regions and helping to promote viable stories from under-represented ones. The new RD guidelines, for example, helps a lot here. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Fighting systemic bias works one way: improving articles about under represented topics. This is why neither TFA, DYK, OTD, TFP etc have this silly made up requirement, and neither does ITN except in the legend and lore that make up the consensus building process at ITN/C. The new RD guidelines help **significantly** in that area by removing the "notability" requirement. Regular stories have no such requirement, except in the minds of the "regulars". Since it does absolutely nothing to help fight the underlying issue of systemic bias at WP, and harms our WP:READERS by running contrary to the WP:ITN#Purpose it really needs to stop. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope, it works both ways. Our policies on WP:NOT, WP:V, and other content policies are set to make sure that we are only including topics of encyclopedic importance, despite the level of coverage they might get in reliable media. (WP:NOT#NEWS first and foremost). Yes, we help by creating articles on topics from underrepresented regions that should be in an encyclopedia but we also avoid topics that are excessive for an encyclopedia even though they can be readily sourced (such as routine sports games). This is the basis of notability guidelines, among other p&gs. It is a balance between being more inclusive where there is a need, and being exclusive when there there clearly is no need but neither helps the project. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, it doesn't work both ways. WP:NOT and WP:V apply to **all** items at ITN, and neither of them have anything to do with fighting systemic bias. Of course WP:V and WP:NOT should apply, I support those policies 100%, but if an item satisfies those policies, and the article is of a quality worthy of the main page, there is no reason whatsoever to suppress it in some attempt to fight systemic bias. You fight bias by improving articles about under-represented topics, not by suppressing articles about over-represented topics. Period. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that working on article from subjects related to underrepresented areas is the best way to work against systemic bias, and that other stories shouldn't be suppressed just for the sake of doing so, but some editorial judgement is needed to balance the many competing interests and points of view. 331dot (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I guess for now if the project wants to rail against celebrity gossip that's fine, but "fighting systemic bias" needs to stop being a justification for an oppose. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with CosmicAdventure. As I see it, it serves two purposes - (i) showcasing our material on the hot topics of the day, and also (ii) alerting people to slightly more fringe global stories that they may otherwise not have heard about. We may do OK on (ii), but on (i) we're failing horribly right now. Massive stories, which hit all the global papers, such as the announcement of the surprise UK general election and the first round voting in the French election, have been brushed under the carpet because of the arbitrary rule that "we don't do announce election results until they come out", even though those are the hot topics of the day. Similarly, on Trump's inauguration day, there was no other story dominating any paper worldwide, yet Wikipedia was silent until a reluctant acceptance that the protests constituted something out of the ordinary. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS should apply just as much here as anywhere else on Wikipedia.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Your point "i" is directly related to the fact that "ITN is not a news ticker". We know that there are stories that get huge coverage in the press, but that's their "newsworthiness", whereas ITN is trying to strive for "encyclopedicness" which are two different goals. (This is all atop quality of topic but that's a separate issue). If we used newsworthiness, even we accounting for article quality, we'd be excessively focused on US and UK stories, repeating the same points over and over again. It's why we try to limit stories like an election cycle to the only point that fundamentally matters, when the winner is determined, whereas if we went with newsworthiness, the last US election cycle would have probably had a story daily at ITN. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Which "ongoing" is perfect to serve. You've still not told me how wall-papering over bias at WP by suppressing stories at ITN actually serves the WP:READERS or actually solves the problem of bias. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

ITN is not a news ticker, first off. If it were, we'd might as well replace the ITN box on the front page with an RSS feed to the BBC or the like. But since WP is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper, we are more selective, which is the first reason we have every ability to deny posting of blurbs that happen to be based on wide media coverage. Secondly, the ITN box is very limited in space, and unlike TFA or DYK, is updated when an admin believes a story is ready to go, meaning that there is no guaranteed length for how a blurb stays up. (some are gone in 24hr, some have lasted 2 weeks that I can recall). To that end, we also want to be selective to make sure we post stories that have longer-term relevance than just a day or so. So again, we're purposely selective there. Keep in mind this is not the same issue with standalone articles, where there is an infinite amount of space, for all purposes, and where only NOT#NEWS/NEVENT really applies.

Since we have to be selective to have ITN function as designed, that means we need to balance inclusion of news stories from underrepresented regions and exclusion from overrepresented region. The various ITNR are designed to try to assure inclusion from underrepresented regions (principally through ones like election results, or the various international sports events), but most of the time, we can't include these because either no one has bothered to write or expand an appropriate articles, or/and no one has bothered to nominate it. But on the other side, with stories from the US/North America or UK/Europe, there's an overwhelming number of editors that keep working on such articles, because there's no lack of sources for that. Arguably most of these meet the core aspects of what would make them ITN, but we recognize there's far far too many of these for ITN to handle and would flood out the underrepresented nominations. So we have purposely made decisions to exclude certain types of stories or only post stories at a certain point (the results of an election rather than lead-up or follow-on, the conviction of a notable person accused of a crime, etc.) We are fighting the systematic bias in a space where there is a practical limit by purposeful exclusion. Again, the situation is mainspace is far different, and we can include all those stories in the effectively unlimited space. But our choice to exclude stories from overrepresented regions in ITN is necessary to make it actually more useful to readers rather than a rapidly changing "ticker". I also add that we have Portal:Current events linked in the box to a separate page with more space and where there is less concern about exclusion since it has that space. Further by being exclusive to stories from over-represented regions, it helps to temper sensationalist news coverage that we should not be following per NEVENT (such as the United Airlines flight incident from a few weeks back)

The TL;DR version: whereas exclusion of topics in an unlimited space like main space on WP makes no sense in trying to fight systematic bias, it is absolutely needed in a limited space like ITN. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we have an RFC to replace ITN with RSS feeds from the BBC? Because I am completely down with that idea... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Emma Morano, the last person born in the 19th century?

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

---

Look at 19th century and List of oldest living people to see that there are actually two more persons living born in the 19th century. --Jobu0101 (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Good catch! I will have to modify the wording of the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Oddly that's a bit of an issue since a lot of the voting for a blurb would have been around that nuance. Oh well. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably, but I'm not going to pull it on a hypothetical. I will keep an eye on it in case there is a drastic change n consensus. On a side note (human interest angle) this woman must have seen some insane changes in her life. She was born on November 29, 1899. Just to get a flavor I decided to see what was going on in the world on the day she was born and all I can say is wow. Reading the newspaper for November 30, 1899 is like stepping into a time machine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice picture of General Lord Methuen there. And a cartoon about the Mazet Committee - I wonder if it's copyright free yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Strengthening consensus requirements for posting RD blurbs

Given that was have the current RD consensus that as long as it's reported and the article is updated that any RD can be posted, I would propose that the level that a blurb simply documenting an RD must be stronger than a simple consensus/majority and should be near-unanimous, discounting any useless "I don't like it"-type !votes. The current RD approach assures that the person will be given space in the ITN box as long as quality is met, so it is not that we are not highlighting this person. But as shown in the past, RD blurbs tend often to be popularity contests that editors try to back by pointing out the volume of news stories on the passed (see Carrie Fisher for example). Since we already have an assured slot for deaths of notable people, we should be much more discriminating when that death should be elevated to a blurb, and that requires a strong consensus to post. Taking the case of Emma Morano, where it was posted based on a 2-to-1 consensus , I would say that's not sufficient for what I would see, if we're going off pure !vote numbers.

Note that this assumes the death itself is not unusual; something like Kim Jong-nam where the means of death was part of the news story would be a different matter, and treating it as a news item.

Along these lines, I would make sure it is clear that if an RD blurb is being discussed, it is always appropriate to at least list the RD in the RD line while discussion continues, presuming that support for article quality is met. I know this is already done, just that if we're going to put something into guidelines, we should document this as an accepted approach. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as instruction creep. We treat a proposed blurb as a proposed blurb. On the second issue, no need to add to guidelines, this is already done. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Consensus is consensus, and we don't need "super consensus" for these things. Vote counting is discouraged, though a factor, and I didn't not see anything in the discussion which would indicate that posting this was a bad idea. Article is sufficient quality, and there was a consensus. --Jayron32 16:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support until we develop some stronger guidelines on when a blurb is appropriate, it is appropriate that we get a strong consensus not just a simple majority. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as instruction creep. I also don't see this as a problem.331dot (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a waste of time I'm afraid. We had the Fast and Furious guy, and an entirely unsuccessful college basketball coach, so we initiated the RD reform package. Since then, a few notable examples of grotesque and partisan abuses of blurbs for popular but not actually historically notable individuals have taken place. These are inevitable given the demographic of our users, and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it. The best thing we can do is to register our discomfort with the absurdity of equating Mandela with Fisher, and move on. I've actually been accused (hilariously, in this case) of being "racist, yes you are!!" because I've objected to the complete over-run of American RDs which have been mystically turned into blurbs. Racist? Americans? "Go figure". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • What you're saying points out that we're allowing RD blurbs to be decided by popularity contests, which absolutely should not be the case. We should not care how beloved a celebrity was, but if they weren't top of their field, we should be very careful to post. But without this type of caution, then as with Marano here, !vote stuffing will win out over valid concerns about importance. RD blurbs should be left to the most extraordinary people. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    • But that's what consensus is all about. You can't create a rule that stops Carrie Fisher from being posted as a blurb if there's sufficient consensus and emotion and American (yes, American) backing for it. How do you gauge a large majority in favour of actress who was truly notable for one single role and say "no, you can't have her as a blurb because she wasn't as important as Greta Garbo"? You just have to suck it up, note your opposition and move on. What is your proposal for dealing with situations when a vast majority vote in favour of a singularly average individual for a blurb? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
      • For one, discount !votes that do no supply any rational, or that tersely state "important person". For another, discount votes that point out widespread news coverage (Which should not be a reason for any ITNC; it should be in the news, but it should not be demanded because every paper in the world perhaps covers it, and/or lack of papers covering it as long as some Rses do). Admins closing need to evaluate rationales for and against posting that are beyond emotional pleas or popularity contests. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
        • You, i.e. you personally cannot do that. What you're suggesting is censorship. I hated the blurbs for the above mentioned, and anyone and everyone will tell you that too, but you can't "discount !votes" based on your own "subjective" version of what you prefer. That's why we have admins who judge consensus. They mainly do evaluate rationales before posting or otherwise. That you think otherwise is more of a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose My view is that blurbs should be functional and, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NPOV, blurbs should be not a token of respect or worthiness. The function of a blurb is to provide some context and clarity. In the case of a really famous person such as David Bowie, a blurb is unnecessary because most readers already know who he was. Blurbs are best used for more obscure people who don't have that level of name recognition – people like the current Allan Holdsworth. This will then given readers the information they need in deciding whether to click through. I'd like to see RD reformatted to provide a brief summary of each person, rather than just a name: Allan Holdsworth, guitarist; Sheila Abdus-Salaam, judge; J. Geils, guitarist; Arnold Clark, car dealer. With such brief blurbs, we could then treat everyone alike. Andrew D. (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as waste of time. We posted the retirement of an English soccer coach, there is no limit to what gets a blurb. In all seriousness, the point of fixing ITN/DC was to eliminate more silly subjective criteria. Consensus at ITN/C has a lot of problems, way beyond deaths, so if WP:READERS aren't complaining, there is nothing to do. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 shooting of Paris police officers

Someone wondered on the article talkpage why this was not on the main page. Given that it was closed within two hours, perhaps it should be re-opened? One concern I have with it is that it was closed before we had enough RS to assess its impact.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Realistically, unless there are further developments this is never going to be accepted for ITN, so reopening the discussion would just be going through the motions. It's getting more coverage than would normally because of its proximity to the elections, but "police officers get attacked by random nut" sadly isn't a particularly unusual story. ‑ Iridescent 08:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a terrorism/ISIS-related attack, on France's world-famous avenue. It would get a lot of media coverage even if Trump hadn't tweeted about the election.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus against posting it. Closure was correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Within two hours though. And our readers are surprised it's not on the main page, as the note on the article talkpage suggests.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

"Consensus" at ITN/C is decided by a handful of "regulars" and once they've said no, User:Stephen closes the discussion. As you can see from the above responses, the regulars agree. WP:READERS are best served when the ITN box is stale for 6 days. This ensures no "systemic bias", "parochial stories", or "gossip". If you were expecting to find content because it was "In the news", or quality content on current events, or a subject you might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest you, or seeing Wikipedia as a dynamic resource (WP:ITN#Purpose), you're mistaken. The "regulars" decide what's interesting to you. Don't worry, soon enough a bomb will explode in some country with weekly bombings, a plane will crash, or some European sporting contest will conclude and the template will be updated again. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Our readers are surprised we don't list every single mass gun crime in the US on the main page, our editors are surprised when Princess Leia is given a blurb. It's a funny old place and that's the nature of consensus. People tend to either get on with it, or moan about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Request Update

In the 2017 Aleppo suicide car bombing, The number of people killed is now reported to be at least 126 including at least 80 children (see 2017 Aleppo suicide car bombing for the sources). Could this page be updated with the more recent numbers?selfworm^Talk) 08:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Try WP:ERRORS for a more timely response. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!selfworm^Talk) 16

05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done I'm leaving the overall death toll at "more than 120" but listing the # of children as at least 80. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)