Wikipedia talk:In the news

Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Apr-Jun)

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

April

• 1 April: Costa Rican general election, 2018
• 2 April: 2018 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship Game
• 8 April:
  • Hungarian parliamentary election, 2018
  • 2018 Laurence Olivier Awards
  • 2018 Masters Tournament
• 11 April: Azerbaijani presidential election, 2018
• 14 April: 2018 Grand National
• 15 April: Montenegrin presidential election, 2018
• 16 April: 2018 Boston Marathon
• 22 April:
  • 2018 London Marathon
  • Paraguayan general election, 2018

May

3 May: Dadasaheb Phalke Award

5 May: 2018 Kentucky Derby

6 May: Lebanese general election, 2018

7 May: 2018 World Snooker Championship

12 May:

• Iraqi parliamentary election, 2018
• 2018 European Rugby Champions Cup Final
• Eurovision Song Contest 2018

13 May: 2017–18 Premier League

19 May: 2018 Cannes Film Festival

20 May:

• 2018 EuroLeague Final Four
• 2018 IIHF World Championship Final
• Venezuelan presidential election, 2018

22 May: Man Booker International Prize

26 May: 2018 UEFA Champions League Final

27 May:

• 2018 Thomas & Uber Cup
• 2018 Indian Premier League Final
• 2018 Indianapolis 500
• Colombian presidential election, 2018

June

2 June: 2018 Epsom Derby

6 June: Soyuz MS-09

9 June: 44th G7 summit

10 June:

• 2018 French Open
• 72nd Tony Awards

13 June: International Dublin Literary Award

17 June:

• 2018 24 Hours of Le Mans
• 2018 U.S. Open (golf)
• 2018 NBA Finals

Late June: 2018 Stanley Cup Finals

Other resources

Recent deaths can be found at Deaths in 2018 Upcoming elections can be found at National electoral calendar 2018 Upcoming solar eclipses can be found at List of solar eclipses in the 21st century Upcoming space launches can be found at 2018 in spaceflight New chemical elements can be found at Timeline of chemical element discoveries 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) 18:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I was told I should have yelled

(see) ... but instead I say as gently as I can that Wanda Wiłkomirska should appear in the RD section, even if a week passed since her death. Nominated 2 May, updated by 3 people a day later, we have a violinist who played in 5 continents, taught in 2, was a victim of the Cold War, was married to a man who became president of Poland, - I believe that she deserves this little bit of homage. Any miracle IAR? If you believe that the recordings section is not references (although we have discogs and worldcat), then you could just drop it. - I have two women in the DYK section today, one pictured, and I tell you: she deserves more to be named there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Both that and the Honours section lack referencing. --Masem (t) 13:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You can always post an RD nomination and specify that it is an IAR nom so it's not immediately closed. But I don't think it will pass and I likely would oppose it. If it were someone whose passing might warrant a blurb, maybe. But that is clearly not the case here. And IT/RD is not intended as a memorial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

RD and Wikipedia are not a memorial or for memorializing any individual. The article will not be posted until it is of adequate quality. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the main page is to highlight quality articles, for ITN it is to highlight quality articles of a recent event. If the article is not of high enough quality while the event is recent enough, it won't be posted. In the future, if you care about posting the death of an individual, improve their article so it is of sufficient quality to appear on the main page, and it will be posted. Simply demanding that it be posted doesn't make the article better. --Jayron32 13:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for comments but all not to the point that the discussion was there, and closed, without saying what was missing. I nominated people before, and they appeared, Walter Fink was last. Her article is much better, and could have been further improved if someone had made that request. Sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

If you feel a nomination is not receiving attention, then you should add "[ready]" or "[attention needed]" to the end of the nomination header. This tends to brings more people to the discussion, and/or an admin to post it if it is ready. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. How can I as the nominator claim "ready"? The other is fine, in case I ever return to this area. I don't feel like it right now. I was probably be spoiled by every attempt so far being successful, making me expect it could not be different, and certainly not with a woman. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ich bin verwirrt. – Sca (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Geh dann in mein Kämmerlein, trage meinen Schmerz allein. - Picture on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

As a onetime (though brief) resident of Warszawa I can only sympathize. Cześć! Sca (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A reminder

The behavior of several editors in the Santa Fe shooting INTC is wholly inappropriate for ITN discussion (both before and after the attempts for closure, and on both sides of !voting) It is appropriate to discuss if the scope of the event is significant enough, with the assumption that all editors are aware that the US has a gun control problem. The discussion absolutely does not need to descend into debate related to gun control or lack thereof at all, even if discussed indirectly. It creates a passive-aggressive atmosphere that degenerates valid discussions and had led to ANI and ArbCom issues before.

This is not only limited to US gun issues; it's coming up more recently regarding issues like sports with limited national attention, among other topics.

We can agree to disagree on whether a topic is of appropriate scope for ITN, but we should not be using that discussion to express views that have no relation either to 1) the article quality and update, 2) the news coverage or 3) appropriateness for ITN posting.

(And please don't reply to this to reopen anything about the gun control debate or other similar debates. That's not appropriate here either.) --Masem (t) 23:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's worth noting here that the Arbitration Committee authorised discretionary sanctions for "any edit about, and for all pages relating to, gun control." Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, what was much worse was the spill-over into other nominations where ridiculous oppositions were made based simply on sour grapes. Lively discussion is just fine, but certain users need to learn when there is no consensus, to accept it, and move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

What's much much worse is the spill over on to users talk pages when the ITN/C discussion is closed and the POV warriors need to get a few last licks in. Opposing a routine plane crash (the 7th in 2018) and pointing out that the industry seems unwilling to take steps to prevent it: That's actually 100% legit. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

What is not needed is passive-aggressive attitudes by all. There's no need to bring any commentary into a !vote that doesn't have to do with article quality and importance, which I see far too often (even the royal wedding nom was going in that direction). --Masem (t) 15:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

All very well if you live in Utopia, where "importance" is quantitative. Here, on Earth, one man's important is another man's trivia. And ITNC affords the right to discuss that, at length if required. It shouldn't get personal but discussion is encouraged and no attempts should be made to censor it or censure those doing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, "importance" will be a personal metric and will be heated. But there is no need to bring statements condescending of any other country, topic or field, or the like to try to justify why one ITNC is more appropriate than another to be posted. Once an editor starts making digs at other editors even indirectly by these "insults" to something they are interested in, it starts a bad cycle that we shouldn't have to use. --Masem (t) 13:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's human nature to judge one nomination by others, to judge future performance on the past. To attempt to censor that kind of interaction is to render us all robots and that's not going to happen. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying one can't compare X to Y, but one can avoid, in that comparison, snarking on unnecessarily politics or other views. US gun shootings is the obvious case here: we all probably can agree the US has a gun control problem, and that is a reasonable starting point to dismiss shootings in the US as not important to post. But we don't need people snarking on the US being a war zone or the like in these comments. That's what leads to these poor discussions. --Masem (t) 14:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You see, you're wrong there. With nearly as many weapons as people, it does make the US a war zone. Your patrolling and commentary on people's opinions as "snark" is merely another form of "snark". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

And you completely missed the point I was making. No one is questioning the US gun problem. I see most editors fully aware that every major shooting that might be in the US papers shouldn't be ITNC material. There's a common ground here already that we don't have to dredge up every time a US shooting is posted; it should be taken a priori that "Hey, this is about a shooting in the US which happens frequently, so consider the importance more carefully than if it was a shooting elsewhere", and that's it. No further need to politicize the issue of gun control in the US, only if the ITNC-nominated shooting surpasses some relative importance bar (and of course, a quality update). And of course, in reverse too: there's no need for editors to snipe at others that have dismissed the importance by trying to plead "think of the children!" type logic. --Masem (t) 14:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss the point. And sadly, it appears that we do need to contextualise each and every gun crime (you call it "dredging up") because each and every time we hear the same old thing (and worse, this time it's apparent that "2 or 3 school shootings a year on ITN is not too many" to some). I don't follow your snipe analogy at all, we all think of the children, primarily those being killed every day (more children killed than US soldiers this year, incidentally, war zone much?). What the majority of us object to is the continual insistence from some quarters that just because it happened in a school in the US, it's instantly worthy of main page inclusion. Your snark here, and your attempts to censor discussion using false and utopian arguments will not wash. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

SantaFe school shooting still in the news today. 7th fatal domestic plane crash of 2018 is not. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh well. But not really relevant to this discussion in any way at all, thanks for trying. (But for what it’s worth, global BBC has another story about the Cuba crash there and no sign of any school shooting. Hi hum)... The Rambling Man (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Being "in the news" is not relevant to "in the news"? I checked BBC too saw only SantaFe not the plane crash. It's too bad the UK's despotic television tax forbids access to the domestic page from outside the country. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't follow you at all. I looked at the world news, you do realise that the BBC dumbs down its content and makes it appealing to its global audience because it sells adverts on your version? I'm glad I don't access the tailored-for-cash page, just the real version of world news which clearly places this minor incident in yesterdays chip paper. Bad luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is getting less and less collegiate and less and less useful. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Dumbs down"? TRM that's not very nice. The thing is, I asked BBC why this happens, and they gave a different answer. It must be terrible, having your information restricted to approved content by the state run media. I couldn't imagine living in such a failed Orwellian dystopia where government spy vans roam the streets seeking out citizens who've not paid the fee to the state controlled media organ. Good luck TRM, some day your country will join the civilized world of free access to information! --LaserLegs (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC) What are you talking about? We have access to all versions of the BBC website, whereas you do not. So I'm not sure why you think we live in a failed Orwellian dystopia. Most of us call that place "The United States of America". Of course, the US model of cable television which is really the bottom of the barrel, is really what we should all be striving to follow, rather than the quality afforded us by a mild licence fee that the BBC charges. We can access all of your detritus-ridden channels, plus we have exclusive access to real news. Which you do not. I'm not sure why I need any luck with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC) You're the one bandying about fake news that the BBC is "dumbed down" for an international market to "sell adverts", when in fact it's your despotic television tax and government spy vans that force you to consume the approved state run version. You seem to have some sort of Stockholm Syndrome for the BBC, actually empathizing with your repressive regime. As for the USA, we have a choice (no house scanning TV detector vans here), and while some people choose to consume the insane propaganda that comes screeching out of Faux News ... our free society allows that. Perhaps it is the domestic version of the BBC which is "dumbed down" to keep the populace compliant? Have you ever lived in a free society? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC) No, once again, let's revisit this. We, in the UK, get to watch whatever we like, whenever we like. The BBC charges a licence to pay for the right to watch the BBC, but its cheaper than a carbine or a Glock, so it's easy for most of us to pay it. We have no repression of news, because, as I noted before, we have complete access to all the news you watch, and more in fact. It's you who are limited in vision, limited in freedom, limited in information. BBC doesn't insult its domestic audience with ads, just the foreign audience have to put up with it. We here can watch your ridiculous Fox News, the hilarious CNN, NBC etc etc, all free of charge, but we also have news which you can't access, so the problem is yours, entirely. Sorry about that. Keep saluting the Trump, keep on believing what you're being told, obey the flag etc. And count the minutes to the next slaughter. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "in the UK, get to watch whatever we like, whenever we like" so long as you pay the license tax to the state run media. See, I'm free to not pay a TV license fee, I'm free to watch PBS or not, I'm free to own a carbine or not (I don't, whats your obsession with firearms anyway?). The "news" as you call it, which I cannot access, is propaganda from the "Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport." Just saying makes you sound like an old Soviet client state, or one of those ultra-conservative religious states. You're compelled, under penalty of fine and imprisonment to pay for the official propaganda of the government or receive no television/radio at all, and you actually believe you get "better" information because of it. Keep saluting the queen, keep on believing what you're being told, obey the crown, etc. And count the minutes to the next mandatory death of a child by the NHS. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC) I don't think you get it. We don't "salute the queen" like you salute Trump. We don't "obey the crown" like you obey Trump. We have an NHS, unlike you, we don't need a credit card to get health care. You're living in a weird dystopia. We have a superset of information. I'm glad you think the real world is "propaganda" because that sums up everything we need to know about your dystopia and your paranoia. Just get back to supporting the NRA, arming the school teachers etc. Honestly, we're not interested. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC) You are explimifying the problem, the "my country is better than yours" attitude. It is absolutely unnecessary hostility that shouldn't be on this talk page, much less at ITNC. --Masem (t) 21:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC) No, you are exemplifying the problem. I gave no "my country is better than yours" attitude, just a simple factual response that included details over our health care program, our lack of firearms problems etc. Why is that a problem for you? Why are you trying to censor discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC) The wedding of the spawn of one of your "royal" hereditary rulers is actually featured right now in ITN. Quite obviously, you salute the crown. Your NHS mandates the death of children, and your state controlled propaganda tells you this is perfectly acceptable. What a grim society that orders the death of children. I hope you escape to the free former colonies of the new world TRM. Cast off the shackles of "royal" oppression just as we once did! --LaserLegs (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC) What you are doing, TRM, is passive-aggressive gloating. They might be "facts", but they are phrased and used in a context in such a way as to demean others, which is a battleground behavior and creates other battleground behavior. And irregardless of that, that type of discussion has zero contribution towards whether we should post an ITNC item or not. We can't censor people from making those comments, but when editors uses those, they do not help and likely will more harm any attempt at useful discussion. And to be clear, you're not the only one leading this types of statements, and you're not the only one responding to when others make these statements, but you're the most vocal of those involved on that aspect as well as the only one under a civility DS which these statements are teetering on. I'd rather see everyone just avoid these types of points and simply focus on the candidates so that there's no likelihood that you would break your civility restriction. --Masem (t) 22:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC) No, don't be silly Masem. I'm responding to your bollocks utopian requirements and censorship advocacy. You can't make us all into robots. It's not going to happen. Personalising it to me "what you are doing, TRM, is..." and then later on trying to appease with "you're not the only one" is bullshit, you should know much better than that. Spinning it that way is not just passive-aggressive, but divisive and actually insulting. I suggest you take a break from your current attempts here to force censor and censure on me. It's becoming a bit embarrassing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC) No, you misunderstand yet again. We don't "salute the crown". We appreciate a multi-cultural event which embraces all-comers and makes the Royal family a more progressive institution. Your view of the NHS is typically one of someone who has absolutely no understanding of how the NHS works, so that's fine, it's simply ignorance rather than fact that you're basing your position on. If you ever need medical treatment when you're in the UK (should you ever dare to visit such a horrendous place) you'll find it to be rather surprising. We don't need to cut any shackles, we're more open and progressive than ever, not stuck in a land of ignorance and hatred and armed teachers. It is rather demonstrative of your lack of understanding of our multi-cultural approach and sadly reflects badly on you. Sorry, I know that must hurt. A lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Multi-cultural"? Let me know when you elect your first black president (or your first black Queen!). I fled the socialist oppression of Canada, I know how failed state healthcare works. Waiting lists and shortages. Now that you're bailing on the EU, the NHS will have even more money to spend executing children! At least that's how Boris put it. Keep calm TRM, and carry on drinking up BBC propaganda and submitting to state control of your own lives. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Sure, I'll let you know. Now hopefully you'll get on with improving Wikipedia, perhaps by writing some articles? Oh... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC) If there is a minimum level of participation at ITN that I'm missing TRM, let me know. BTW: No one reasonable doubts your contributions to the project, and despite our disagreements, I'd still vote to re-admin you. You're wrong about America, but you make the project better by being here. Cheers, TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

email from BBC about domestic vs international version
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BBC Enquiries - Case ref: CAS-3154852-0RY0P0 1 message bbc_faq_website@bbc.co.uk <bbc_faq_website@bbc.co.uk> Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:34 AM To: **************************************** Hi *********, Thanks for getting in touch. It's lovely to read you are a fan of our BBC News website but as you reside in America you have to see the international version of our site whereas before you could manipulate the system to show you the UK version and you wonder if you can have this function back. In short the answer is no I'm afraid. All international users should only ever be seeing is the .com version of our website, the domestic version is for residents in the U.K only who pay the licence fee. I know this isn’t the answer you wanted but I hope you understand. Thanks for your support though! Best wishes, Audrie Wilson BBC Enquiries Team P.S. It’s not possible to reply to this email, but if you need to get in touch again about this enquiry, please use our webform – www.bbc.co.uk/faqs/forms – quoting the case number we provided in the subject of this email (or alternatively, if you’re in the UK, you can call us on 03704 101 060*). Many thanks! (*calls charged at the same rate as calls made to standard UK landline phone numbers starting 01 or 02)

It's silly to say all politics must be kept out of such discussions. It cannot be done. To this non-American, I see some American gun enthusiasts NOT wanting school shootings posted because they see them as painting guns in a bad light. I see others wanting them posted precisely for that reason. Pretending one can keep one's biases out of this is wishful thinking. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I strongly disagree. Yes, individual !votes are going to have a person's political stance behind it. That's unavoidable. But what is avoidable is proselytizing that stance to insist you are right, or attacking the view of another. You can say that "I don't think we should post this school shooting because they are common in the US and this one doesn't rise to a level of significance I feel is appropriate" - that's fine. You shouldn't say "I don't think we should post this school shooting because Americans have no idea how to handle gun control." is not. As soon as one brings politics into a !vote, it can personalize the issue and leads to inappropriate discussion. This is not a place to debate those types of issues. --Masem (t) 21:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. The problem is that the reasons editors publicly state for supporting or opposing a position can be quite different from their real reasons. We can all tailor an argument to suit our biases. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid people can't be instructed to make argument by being robots. We're actual humans (most of you are, anyway) so that means actual human subjective, political, ethical and emotional statements are made, and they should not be dismissed as "snark" or censored as Masem suggests. Really, Wikipedia is not a facist dictatorship, people should be allowed to express themselves without having to kowtow to some imaginary inhuman standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You can have opinions; but Wikipedia content is built on reliable sources and discussions about said content at all parts of Wikipedia should be based on citations to those sources. No one is saying you need to be without emotion on these issues, but there's no need to bring the emotion into discussions. Article quality can be assessed, and media coverage can be assessed without need to bring the emotions into it. Discussion should always be about assessment of sources, not about our feelings of the particulars of the situation. Unsavory events are part of the record, and we needn't treat those events differently because we have feelings about them. --Jayron32 02:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're a robot, that's fine. These discussions are subjective, by their very nature. You can't assess the sources of a school shooting to determine whether or not it should be on Wikipedia's main page, that's complete nonsense. And I absolutely guarantee that the majority of those supporting the inclusion did it based on their personal feelings of the particulars of the situation. I saw no evidence at all of people checking sources before voting to support its inclusion. So get real people, attempting to censor and censure individuals for being human is not going to work. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. For events such as school shootings there will always be many sources to choose from. Folk such as me, who think American gun laws are insane, are unlikely to suggest using one presenting the NRA's viewpoint. I will have no trouble finding other sources. Call me biased if you wish, but don't expect me (or most other people) to change. HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Referencing at ITN/C

Over the past weeks, we have posted a number of pages which, on closer inspection, had problems with verifiability. Here are examples, which are from the versions that were posted:

• George Deukmejian: This source [1], used frequently, did not support much of the content in this revision.
• Khaled Mohieddin: This source [2], again a major one in the article, does not support most of the content it was used for here.
• Doina Cornea: These two sources [3] and [4], do not support some of the content they are used for here.
• Toronto van attack: "According to a photograph taken at the incident, a man has been arrested by Toronto police officials." Not in the source. "while not disclosing the color of the van." Not in source.
• John Carrick (Australian politician): Certainly the best of those I checked; still, some shortcomings in referencing.

These articles all received support from some of our ITN/C regulars, and were posted by different admins (including myself). I'm not interested in a blame game here, but there are two questions we have to address.

1. What is the standard of referencing we expect?
2. How do we enforce this standard?

I feel we shouldn't post any article with inadequately referenced text. I would therefore like us to require spotchecks of sources before articles are posted to ITN. I recognize, though, that I'm more stringent in my requirements w.r.t. sourcing than most folks, so I would like to hear more opinions on this. Vanamonde (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that we should not be posting anything to the main page with referencing errors like this. WP:BLP applies to the recently deceased (and thus to all RD entries) and this also requires accuracy in sourcing. Therefore spot checks do seem like a good idea - I think the best way to highlight this is to do said spot checking and note in a comment on the nomination that you have done so and what the results were. If you discover something like this after posting, then note it at WP:ERRORS. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Vanamonde93: Carrick was my posting. I did spot check, but was unable to access the two pay-walled obits cited. I agree errors in RDs are a problem but I'm most concerned about material that is obviously negative, which I've often found is cited to clearly insufficiently reliable sources. I do think we have to be careful to avoid exacerbating bias -- online free sources in English make checking simple; offline sources, pay walls, non-English material particularly in non-Roman alphabets all mean that if we're not careful we end up only posting British/American celebrities/sportspeople/politicians. Perhaps we should stop posting RDs in order of death date, and just have a ticker in order of posting? The other point that needs clarification is who is responsible for doing this -- the posting admin, all ITN regulars, everyone who comments? Espresso Addict (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Espresso Addict: To be fair, Carrick was a lot better than Doina Cornea, which I posted, but the errors in which I only found later. I agree entirely that the type of sourcing used is going to create some bias; but given the serious shortcomings I found without much effort in the first four, I'm concerned that we're not checking at all. I don't see how it is practical to make such checks the responsibility of the administrators. Admins should be required to check the quality of what they're posting, but I think the responsibility is on the folks who are commenting on nominations. Just as we don't post things that have uncited content, I think we shouldn't post articles which haven't been explicitly spot-checked in the nomination process, by a person who wasn't responsible for adding the reference in the first place. Vanamonde (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• I read the articles and check refs for suspicious claims before offering a !vote. Many don't, instead using ITN/C to push their editorial POV. Except for BLP issues, it's not the end of the world. If you find something egregious in a linked article, you can either strike it, or take it to WP:ERRORS. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• @LaserLegs: Except that most itn posts are recent deaths, and so most of the items I've brought up here are BLP violations. If we're consistently posting BLP violations, then we should check articles more carefully before posting, surely? Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 15:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Closing an active item

As a matter of principle, an item that is currently on the main page cannot be closed. Not before it has been removed from the main page and discussion no longer serves a purpose. As long as it's on the main page, it's open for debate/views. Not all editors are active 24/7 and even those who missed the first single day of debate should have an opportunity to weigh in. Furthermore, the circumstances of the item may change, as may consensus. An item being posted is not the end of the debate, because editors may want to pull the item and voice their opposition to it being on the main page, and should be free to express that opinion. --Tataral (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Once an article is posted, issues with that posting are usually taken to WP:ERRORS. Discussions which have devolved into bickering are usually closed, but can be re-opened if need be. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

If the discussion of a posted item is closed, there is usually a good reason. That closure is not chiseled in stone, and can be reopened if there is good cause to. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Views on whether the article should remain posted or be pulled don't belong on WP:ERRORS as they are not related to errors. When an article is posted after a single day of discussion, it's perfectly reasonable for other editors to weigh in and voice support or opposition to the item (i.e. on whether it should remain posted, or be pulled), and there is no reason to close a discussion that has remained civil and mostly on point just because the article has been posted, especially as these discussions are often used as a source of precedent in later discussions. The only thing that marks the definite end of the discussion is the item being removed from the main page on being outdated due to more recent items being posted. --Tataral (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Some stuff was never going to be posted (the school shooting) and some never pulled (the royal wedding). You have to hang around for a while and you'll see it. You can re-open a closed nom (which makes closing it basically pointless) but you'll get berated a few times before it's just closed again. Welcome to ITN! --LaserLegs (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I've hung around for about a decade, I just take long breaks from ITN discussions. --Tataral (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course I don't think Tataral is referring to those particularly obvious cases, but more specifically to the "edge cases". For instance, the U.S. government shutdown which was posted to the main page, and then bizarrely, pulled on the basis of "the event is over", a precedence which I don't believe was ever used before on ITN, nor repeated. This runs in contrast to discussions which, after posting, tend to be closed with the rationale of "If you have an issue, take it to WP:ERRORS." Which, ironically, can be met with closure there on the basis of "That's not an error." Some clarity as to when and whether or not a discussion can be closed would probably help to alleviate these nuisances.--WaltCip (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• WaltCip has a point here. I would be in favour of stating that WP:ERRORS is for errors, and that other issues with ITN items can be raised either at WP:ITN/C (if the discussion hasn't been closed) or WT:ITN otherwise. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• WP:ERRORS is for correcting errors, updates (e.g. to death tolls) and other changes to published blurbs (e.g. rewording if some people are finding it confusing, updating targets following page moves, etc). After posting, ITN/C is about whether it should remian posted or not or for discussion if there is significant disagreement about whether something is an error or not. In all cases it is approrpiate to close something per WP:SNOW or when discussion is not relevant to the above (although hatting is sometimes better in the latter case). Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• When I see editors already being crass to each other in a discussion before a ITNC is posted, and that rude behavior continues after, without any rationale reason to pull (poor quality, bad references, news was incorrect, etc.) then closing the whole discussion is better than letting the ITNC item stew there. As I pointed out above, discussion that is not about quality or newsworthiness for ITNC is generally not helpful period, and the faster we can close down ITNCs with problematic discussions the better. --Masem (t) 13:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Bruce McArthur

I nominated Bruce McArthur for ITN a few days ago (diff link) and it seems to have fallen off the page. Did I make a mistake in my nomination? The on-page instructions weren't too clear to me. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Reidgreg: - items older than 7 days are automatically archived, and this is what has occurred to your nomination, which can be found here. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC).

  @Stormy clouds: is it normal for nominations to be archived without discussion? Is there anything extra I should do if I want to re-nominate the article following its next newsworthy update? – Reidgreg (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It is unusual, but I notice that you nominated it on May 19 but placed it in the May 15 section - that may be why no-one noticed it. I'm unclear as to what the precise event was that prompted the nomination - "the investigation continues" is not really an event as such, and we don't normally post ongoing criminal cases for BLP reasons. Normally the conviction or sentencing is the event. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

From the instructions: Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). The "event" was the investigation becoming the biggest forensic investigation in the city's history, on May 15. That is a fairly minor point but the instructions say that "recent developments" and "updates" are OK. I'd have hoped an article with c.160 news sources would be considered newsworthy. For similar BLP reasons the article is in the process of being moved/renamed (it is more about the investigation and controversies related to the investigation than the alleged perpetrator) and I would prefer to rewrite the blurb to address the investigation (once we have a name for it). – Reidgreg (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Addendum: I just checked Google news for "Bruce McArthur" and found 7 sources from the last 12 hours (5 local, 1 national, 1 from the US). Reidgreg (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, even if it was top of the nomination list right now, I suspect it would be opposed. Police investigations, even large ones, are not usually posted as ITN items. We post convictions of criminals normally, nothing more. If it was a 15 May posting, then it's already stale so it wouldn't be posted, since ITNC only has the last seven days to discuss. I'd suggest that, despite the vast number of references, this is no longer an ITNC concern, and may be either worth re-nominating once the individual is convicted (see WP:BLP for reasons why we don't just post accusations) or some variant could be suggested at DYK. Either way, it's not going to be on ITN any time soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I would have opposed that nomination on the grounds that we don't post arbitrary milestones - and most expensive is fairly arbitrary (e.g. is this adjusted for inflation?) especially with two qualifiers (forensic investigation + only in one third-tier (Global city#GaWC study) city). Also as pointed out only very exceptionally do we post ongoing criminal investigations at all, primarily for BLP reasons. The best point at which to nominate this story will be either when the investigation concludes with no charges being brought, or if charges are brought, when the resulting trial concludes or (hopefully not) collapses. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Also it's worth noting that if you make a nomination in a section earlier than yesterday's you can put "(New)" at the start of the subject line to try and attract attention. If that doesn't work then you can ask on this page for input, but items nominated in sections more than 7 days old are always automatically archived regardless of whether they have had any input and/or whether any discussion is ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks. I was curious about the leading parenthetics but the instructions didn't say anything about them so I thought that was to be added by a coordinator. BTW, would a peripheral mention be more likely to pass? Pride Toronto will occur in another month and the annual festival & parade is expected to be more somber with volunteers wearing black instead of rainbow colours in response to the deaths in the aforementioned investigation. No good? – Reidgreg (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Doubt it would make it to ITN. It's not a comment on the issue you're discussing, just that ITN deals generally with more global aspects (even though it says it doesn't) of the news. Having said that, there's nothing stopping you nominating it, and then you'd see the "real" reasons why it wouldn't be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Mentioning the parentheses in the instructions is probably not a bad idea - I haven't got time to think about it now but I'll see about either adding or proposing to add (depending how significant the change turns out to be) in a day or so. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)