Wikipedia talk:In the news
|
Error reports
Please do not post error reports for Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you. |
|
Suggestions
Please do not suggest items for, or complain about items on Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ITNC. Thank you. |
|
This talk page is for general discussions on In the news.
Please note: The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the In the news process. It is not a place to ask general questions, report errors, or to submit news items for inclusion.
Looking for an RSS feed of "In the news"? Check out <http://itn.svick.org/>. |
|
Archives |
|---|
|
|
| Threads older than 10 days may be archived by MiszaBot II. |
Contents
2015 Mina stampede numbers[edit]
"Official" death tolls for this are becoming increasing divergent, with the Saudi count at 750 incompatible with the counts provided by individual countries (which sum to 1,180). The article has been unstable as a result, and it's not clear what number to use in a blurb. We can of course say "At least 750 people..." but in that case, we are defacto following the Saudi line (which has been criticized as being inaccurate). For this reason, I have temporarily made the blurb non-specific ("hundreds of people") until we can decide what to do. Smurrayinchester 15:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- There's already a WP:ERRORS discussion about this. What we had originally was just fine, especially as the article itself needs to be carefully and consistently maintained if we suddenly start changing numbers based on those claimed by other countries. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
U.K. Systemic Bias[edit]
Probably better to continue this here than on the nom thread of Denis Healey. How is he sufficiently notable for RD while Jim Wright and Tom Foley weren't? Meanwhile a major shooting in the U.S. that has dominated our news isn't posted because it's not news? Because we've had shootings before? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Only 264, this year: [1]. 217.38.94.42 (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- And most of them aren't nominated. Each event is judged individually, is it not? Frequency shouldn't matter, only newsworthiness. And that's a U.K. source discussing the story. This one is major, but no, somehow this event "isn't news" because it's not the first one of the year. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- How many have been posted this year? How does this death toll compare with those? Yes a UK source, which I've used to show the total number, nothing else - are disputing that number?217.38.94.42 (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- A good point, why should a UK source be different from any other source in attempting to objectively deal with the gun crimes committed hourly in the US? Perhaps the US don't like it being analysed in such objective detail, maybe that's why there's so much lethargy and general acceptance of all these mass killings, including the execution of children. It's odd to most of us by now that the US participants aren't surprised by the rest of the world's depressed boredom over such events. Plus ca change... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please show me where those criteria are listed for judgment. According to WP:ITN, "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." And yet the top news story in the U.S. is not regarded to be of sufficient "wide interest" because of other shootings that didn't get wide interest? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's reasonable to ask how it compares to others. You know, someone might ask how Healey compares with Thatcher? Someone might even go to Umpqua Community College shooting to see if the introduction explains why it's so notable. Or to School shooting to see if it appears there. 217.38.94.42 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- News coverage is far greater for this shooting than for most of the others. If I knew how to use Google analytics, I could prove that easily. If the UCC shooting were mentioned prominently in School shooting, that would probably be WP:RECENTISM, so whether or not an editor sticks it in there isn't a valid criterion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I guess it wouldn't belong in School shooting until it's comparative notability was evident. Maybe someone else can help us with the "Google analytics". 217.38.94.42 (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter one bit what you personally think about how important this specific incident of a school shooting is, the fact of the matter is that the majority of the contributors to ITN decided it was not important enough. Quite right too, it's already slipped way off main pages around the round the world, except perhaps a few US pages. It would have been US systemic bias to have included it, and you know that. We're not here to advertise that the US is a gun-crazy haven where children and adults are killed alarmingly frequently as a result of the botched interpretation of the amendment to the constitution. We're here to determine if a story is notable, and in this case, it's simply not, it literally is just another mass shooting in the US. Big deal. What will change? Nothing. Why should anyone outside of Oregon care? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- News coverage is far greater for this shooting than for most of the others. If I knew how to use Google analytics, I could prove that easily. If the UCC shooting were mentioned prominently in School shooting, that would probably be WP:RECENTISM, so whether or not an editor sticks it in there isn't a valid criterion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's reasonable to ask how it compares to others. You know, someone might ask how Healey compares with Thatcher? Someone might even go to Umpqua Community College shooting to see if the introduction explains why it's so notable. Or to School shooting to see if it appears there. 217.38.94.42 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please show me where those criteria are listed for judgment. According to WP:ITN, "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." And yet the top news story in the U.S. is not regarded to be of sufficient "wide interest" because of other shootings that didn't get wide interest? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- And most of them aren't nominated. Each event is judged individually, is it not? Frequency shouldn't matter, only newsworthiness. And that's a U.K. source discussing the story. This one is major, but no, somehow this event "isn't news" because it's not the first one of the year. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'd argue that a UK Chancellor is a more important figure than a Speaker of the House (in either the US or UK), as they're de facto either the most powerful or second most powerful person in the country. Because the UK is so centralized, control of finances (and the Chancellor has absolute control) gives them an effective veto over every major institution, since the Chancellor can literally shut down any institution or block any policy instantly just by withholding funding from it; the Chancellor also controls the benefit system, which effectively gives him (it's always been a him) control over housing prices and thus credit. Anyone who remembers the decade of Gordon Brown blocking every idea Blair ever came up with will know this isn't just a hypothetical power. (In Healey's time, the Chancellor also controlled the Bank of England, meaning he had total control over both interest rates and the money supply.) There isn't really a US equivalent to the post, as much of that power resides with the states and the rest is spread across the federal government; the closest equivalent would be if the Secretary of the Treasury also automatically held the posts of Vice President and Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Plus, per my comments on the ITN nomination, Healey wasn't just any Chancellor, but one of the most powerful figures in Europe during what was probably Europe's worst crisis since the war. ‑ iridescent 18:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't deny Healey's importance (even though I probably still don't have a solid grasp on it, since the nomination discussion didn't get much more in depth than that he "obviously" meets criteria). I question the diminishment of Speaker as a role. I don't know how exactly the U.S. and U.K. versions of the speakership compare, but I can tell you that the Speaker of the U.S. House determines whether or not a bill becomes a law (pending presidential veto), because he (or she) has sole discretion on what bills are brought up for a vote. That's serious power, so to say the Speaker is a "Mid-level US politician", while a UK Chancellor slides through with very little opposition, is a double standard of systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just for information (though I could be wrong, don't live in the UK) reading about the Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom), it seems that position is different from the US Speaker of the House largely due to 1) being non-partisan as opposed to the partisan US job and 2) it is largely managerial and does not direct policy like the US Speaker. While possible, it is very hard to bring up something for a vote without the Speaker's approval(a discharge petition, which rarely happens). I do think being US Speaker merits posting as Muboshgu states. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't deny Healey's importance (even though I probably still don't have a solid grasp on it, since the nomination discussion didn't get much more in depth than that he "obviously" meets criteria). I question the diminishment of Speaker as a role. I don't know how exactly the U.S. and U.K. versions of the speakership compare, but I can tell you that the Speaker of the U.S. House determines whether or not a bill becomes a law (pending presidential veto), because he (or she) has sole discretion on what bills are brought up for a vote. That's serious power, so to say the Speaker is a "Mid-level US politician", while a UK Chancellor slides through with very little opposition, is a double standard of systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Sad face: my nomination failed, but this other one succeeded...[edit]
Come on people, move on. We work on consensus, we work on quality of article posted. What's the actual point of starting a thread here to start bitching about whether Mr X should have been posted because Mr Y was posted weeks/months later? Does that help anything? We don't have a "standards bar", we reflect what the community want to be posted. If we aren't doing that, then we're not doing our jobs properly as admins. If Muboshgu wants to take this complaint seriously, ANI is that way. In the meantime, please, just pull yourselves together and work on getting more and better quality items at ITN on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's not anything about "my" nomination, it's that one of the top stories in the U.S. since Thursday, a good quality item for the record, isn't posted because of what I can only refer to as systemic bias. I agree, I don't need ANI for this, I need for users to take a less ethnocentric look at certain stories that get dismissed according to personal standards that are in opposition to ITN guidelines. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please! Systemic bias does not apply to U.S. items not being posted, not when the U.S. already has the lion's share of ITN postings.--WaltCip (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Dismissal of a major U.S. story based on "oh other shootings have happened before" seems like a bias to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- In recent weeks there has been a relative small number of "US items" posted. Currently there are zero(maybe a half a one, with the VW story). 331dot (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- But still waiting to hear why this "major U.S. story" about a school shooting is more notable that all the others that have not been posted. You said something about "Google analytics"? But I'm not sure those are typically used as criteria here, are they? 217.38.186.248 (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- They can showcase news stories, google hits, etc. that would indicate newsworthiness. Aside from googling how to run numbers, I don't know what else to say here. Umpqua is a major story leading U.S. news for the last 72 hours. A shooting in the Tampa area killed three last week and got little coverage, hence it hasn't been nominated here. Major shootings often get nominated here, and yet are seldom posted. The Charleston church shooting was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the trope "the U.S. already has the lion's share of ITN postings" isn't true, and hasn't ever been true. It is accepted as true because it is merely repeated over and over again by people asserting it, but I've never seen anyone present any evidence that U.S. stories get posted out of proportion to stories from elsewhere. Many U.S. stories are opposed solely on that assertion, and yet the assertion itself does not hold up based on observations and data, from what I have seen. People simply state it as though it was a verifiable fact, and yet I've never seen one bit of evidence presented to verify it. --Jayron32 01:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- But still waiting to hear why this "major U.S. story" about a school shooting is more notable that all the others that have not been posted. You said something about "Google analytics"? But I'm not sure those are typically used as criteria here, are they? 217.38.186.248 (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Stop being so combative Muboshgu. Your opinion isn't followed by the majority, clearly. Deal with it. I have no interest in edit-warring, so I'll be the mature one and leave this. Fgf10 (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- I don't know that I'm being "combative", but I'm seriously questioning ITN process. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Making up fictitious things like a "UK systemic bias" is hardly being serious. I suggest you step away from the computer, chill a bit and get some perspective. Fgf10 (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just because it is Muboshgu's opinion doesn't make it 'fictitious'. I think that's a bit harsh. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Then to counter that, Muboshgu should provide substantive evidence that there is a UK systemic bias at ITN, or else withdraw the claim. I look forward to seeing the results. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm more curious as to where this supposed flood of UK stories is hiding, since on a skim through the history I can see a grand total of one since the plane crash on 22 August ("Queen Elizabeth becomes longest reigning monarch"). ‑ iridescent 20:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've pointed one out. The guy on RD cruised through with comments like he's an "obvious" candidate with no discussion of why he's an obvious candidate, while similar U.S. politicians are dismissed. Meanwhile, a shooting that's top of U.S. news since Thursday is opposed, while in the past a jubilee and tenure record for a figurehead monarch have been posted. The Umpqua shooting not getting posted isn't a pro-UK bias, but it's a shocking dismissal of a major news story. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm more curious as to where this supposed flood of UK stories is hiding, since on a skim through the history I can see a grand total of one since the plane crash on 22 August ("Queen Elizabeth becomes longest reigning monarch"). ‑ iridescent 20:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Then to counter that, Muboshgu should provide substantive evidence that there is a UK systemic bias at ITN, or else withdraw the claim. I look forward to seeing the results. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just because it is Muboshgu's opinion doesn't make it 'fictitious'. I think that's a bit harsh. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Making up fictitious things like a "UK systemic bias" is hardly being serious. I suggest you step away from the computer, chill a bit and get some perspective. Fgf10 (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please! Systemic bias does not apply to U.S. items not being posted, not when the U.S. already has the lion's share of ITN postings.--WaltCip (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't involved in the Foley & Wright debates but: there's no real explanation on Wikipedia of what Foley and Wright did that was significant while they held this office. There's a bit about a civil rights debate Wright was involved with 30 years before he became speaker, and a rule about air travel in the Dallas area. For Foley, nothing much except opposing term limits. Healey had both much more overt political power (he was UK finance minister so controlled which departments get what money, and set interest rates) and held it at a much more critical time (he had to admit that the UK would collapse without a bridging loan from the IMF, probably the worst collapse of the British economy since the war). In addition, he was a kingmaker in several leadership contests. And this is explained clearly in the Wikipedia article. (His extreme quotability doesn't hurt his notoriety, to be fair.) Reading his article, there is a lot more about Healy's contribution to politics: his policies, opinions, friendships.
The other articles don't compare in their ability to introduce people to their subject coming from another country. There's no contest. For example, how did Foley get on with Reagan? Nixon? Those names literally do not appear in the article once. And nothing about what he did in the Bush period, despite holding office as speaker during nearly his entire term of office, apart from a few vague, general comments by Bush.
Ultimately, saying 'never heard of them' is never constructive: RDs should raise awareness of interesting lives and events. What is needed is to look at an article and see if a person was significant and if the article explains why, in order to decide if they are someone people should know more about. Healey's article does this. Foley & Wright's don't. Blythwood (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)- I agree that Foley and Wright's articles aren't good enough to be posted. Of course, the oppose votes came in so fast as to discourage editors from making the improvements that would need to be made before posting. I recall spending more of my energy debating his significance at ITN than improving their pages, which is a shame. The accomplishments are there, though. Foley ushered through the Gramm Rudman Hollings Balanced Budget Act, NAFTA, the Americans with Disabilites Act, updates to the Clean Air Act, expanding Head Start, and others. Wright was less accomplished as speaker since he wasn't in the position as long, but he moved a lot of bills into law. Healey's article is much better, but I still didn't think it did a good job of explaining his importance to someone who isn't knowledgeable of UK politics, such as myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. Reading this I think a lot of this could be helped by all participants in a matter better explaining why a person(or story) is notable and not just saying "notable" or "iconic" with a support vote- and also trying to be more understanding of everyone else's point of view. I include myself in that. We never will be totally successful at either but we always need to strive to make the attempt. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- That is indeed part of it, but we also need to think about the reader. For RD they have nothing but the name of the person so the article has to do all the explaining of why someone is/was notable - they don't get to see the discussions or explanations on ITN/C. In reality this means the lead section of the article has to explain to the reader who has not heard of this person what made them significant enough to be linked on the main page when they died. To a someone interested in UK politics, a being chancellor of the exchequer is all that needs to be said (that and Prime Minister are imho the only two roles where that is the case, home secretaries are subject to the will of the chancellor and tend to change more frequently, so they need some indication of what significance they had while in office). It's clear though from discussions like this though that this is not obvious to those more familiar with US politics. The same is apparently true for Speakers in the US: The speaker of the House of Commons is probably best described as a false friend - it sounds like it should be an equivalent position but they are actually very different. We all need to appreciate this and move beyond it. It might be handy to have a sort of crib guide for ITN/C contributors for how roles in US/UK/Australian/Indian? politics compare with each other. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think the reason this one is an oddity is because of Healey's part in 70s politicking that still affects UK - and more widely European policy today (Iridescent summed it up best in the discussion). I didn't vote on this, but I cannot think of any other Chancellor of the Exchequer of the last 40 years (bar those such as John Major and Gordon Brown who later became PM) that I would have supported. Hopefully it will lead to the article being improved as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- That is indeed part of it, but we also need to think about the reader. For RD they have nothing but the name of the person so the article has to do all the explaining of why someone is/was notable - they don't get to see the discussions or explanations on ITN/C. In reality this means the lead section of the article has to explain to the reader who has not heard of this person what made them significant enough to be linked on the main page when they died. To a someone interested in UK politics, a being chancellor of the exchequer is all that needs to be said (that and Prime Minister are imho the only two roles where that is the case, home secretaries are subject to the will of the chancellor and tend to change more frequently, so they need some indication of what significance they had while in office). It's clear though from discussions like this though that this is not obvious to those more familiar with US politics. The same is apparently true for Speakers in the US: The speaker of the House of Commons is probably best described as a false friend - it sounds like it should be an equivalent position but they are actually very different. We all need to appreciate this and move beyond it. It might be handy to have a sort of crib guide for ITN/C contributors for how roles in US/UK/Australian/Indian? politics compare with each other. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
This is getting old[edit]
Speaking only for myself, I'm getting tired of the transatlantic pissing contest that is turning ITN into a very unpleasant place to work in. If this battleground atmosphere persists I am going to look for somewhere else to contribute. If I wanted to spend my time wading through childish bullshit I would hang out at ANI. Sorry for the language, but sometimes you gotta call it like you see it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no comment here on individual nominations and I have always respected the consensus regardless of how I myself vote/argue a nomination, but I am certainly not encouraged by seeing such overt political discussions taking place in nominations for a supposedly neutral ITN. This doesn't attract helpful, neutral contributors, it attracts belligerence by tempting others with obviously provocative/biased commentary.
Is it really so hard to just give polite input without airing personal views? Without dismissing elected officials of other countries as "parochial" or "not notable"? What does it say about your capacity for self control if you volunteer for something whose mission statement is neutrality and internationalism but can't resist spouting off your political opinions at virtually every opportunity?
This may be a provocative thing to say, but I believe it is nevertheless true: giving your political views here is not good faith. It is an affront to your fellow editors. Doing so does not make you a voice of reason among sheeple, it makes you a loudmouth. There are no shortage of places on the internet that would love to hear your side of things and argue to death over them - keep such dumpster fires where they belong. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 05:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Nobel targets[edit]
While we're in Nobel season, is it worth us trying to be consistent on the links? Right now we have:
- "Nobel Peace Prize" linking to 2015 Nobel Peace Prize
- " Nobel Prize in Literature" linking to Nobel Prize in Literature
- "Nobel Prize in Chemistry" linking to List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry
I know the updates are done by different people at different times but I just wondered if we should aim to have a more consistent approach to, at least, which Nobel articles we're pointing to with lookie-likie links. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see a need for consistent targets in different blurbs. The peace prize is the only with a 2015 article and will probably remain so. There are peace prize articles for each year since 2001 while no other prize has an article for any year. Note: I created 2015 Nobel Peace Prize but didn't add it to the blurb. It could use expansion. List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry is a featured list. So is List of Nobel laureates in Literature, but Nobel Prize in Literature seems better than Nobel Prize in Chemistry. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, that's fine, it was just a simple question, that our readers, who are completely unaware of the complexities of Wikipedia and its articles/lists/featured content, may expect to land on the same kind of page for three similar links within the same section of the main page. My bad. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Nobel Prize ticker or window?[edit]
There might be more coming in the news. Shall we need a ticker in the ITN window? Separate window for Main Page? --George Ho (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- No. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Why not?--WaltCip (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- The ticker is implied for events where there is ongoing coverage for a long period of time. While the Nobels take place over a week, each is a fixed event, known well in advance when they will happen (just the "who" is unknown until announcement). Further, given that they are generally considered one of the top awards of any type for human achievement, it should not be relegated to a ticker line - each award should have a blurb. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's blindingly obvious that we have this rush once a year, we don't need a ticker or a window for it. I'm afraid I find the suggestion absurd, but that's just me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- The ticker is implied for events where there is ongoing coverage for a long period of time. While the Nobels take place over a week, each is a fixed event, known well in advance when they will happen (just the "who" is unknown until announcement). Further, given that they are generally considered one of the top awards of any type for human achievement, it should not be relegated to a ticker line - each award should have a blurb. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Why not?--WaltCip (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Stale RDs[edit]
I need some clarification, please. I tried to remove some stale recent death listings from the template, but was reverted by TRM. It's my understanding that recent death listings are removed when they are older than the oldest news item or after seven days from the date of death, whichever comes first. Am I incorrect? --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Seven days seemed to be what I assumed, why remove stuff arbitrarily, just because we're having a rush of Nobel prizes? P.S. It was undone, not reverted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- I can't point to any guideline on this but I have always thought of seven days as the magic number for RD. Definitely open to correction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Found one: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Administrator_instructions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Very well, undo my undo and mindlessly nearly empty RD for no tangible gain per the instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Done. If you don't like it, suggest a change. This has been discussed quite a few times, and we do it that way for a reason. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- For no good reason it seems, but there you go. I have little time for discussion over something so abundantly stupid, nor with somebody who follows such abundantly stupid guidance so blindly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- You guessed, you were wrong, time to move on. If it bothers you, suggest a change. Griping about it accomplishes nothing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- For no good reason it seems, but there you go. I have little time for discussion over something so abundantly stupid, nor with somebody who follows such abundantly stupid guidance so blindly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Done. If you don't like it, suggest a change. This has been discussed quite a few times, and we do it that way for a reason. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Very well, undo my undo and mindlessly nearly empty RD for no tangible gain per the instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Found one: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Administrator_instructions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- I can't point to any guideline on this but I have always thought of seven days as the magic number for RD. Definitely open to correction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Already have, demonstrating how stupid your blind adherence was. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Following on[edit]
Per the above, do we need a requirement to link the longevity of RDs to blurbs? Generally, RDs go stale after seven days and that's been working fine. The current admin "instruction" appears archaic and groundless, without any justification whatsoever, despite a claim that "we do it that way for a reason". Unless, of course, that reason is mindless indoctrination. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sometimes RDs take time to improve (5 days after the nom it's finally referenced and good to go). Of it's a slow news week, linking RD longevity to the rest of the section makes some sense so it's not posted for a day and then removed a day after even when regular ITN items aren't cycling. That said, when it is a fast news week (e.g. loads of Nobel items) and there aren't a lot of RD postings, keeping them up for a week makes sense. SpencerT♦C 21:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- I think the key here is to treat the guidelines as just that, guidelines. They should not trump WP:COMMONSENSE flexibility in running ITN. This doesn't seem like a difficult concept to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks both, that pretty much sums up what I thought. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think the key here is to treat the guidelines as just that, guidelines. They should not trump WP:COMMONSENSE flexibility in running ITN. This doesn't seem like a difficult concept to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Jerry Parr[edit]
I'm just wondering what a police officer/bodyguard would have to do for their career to get onto RD if saving the leader of a country isn't enough. It wasn't just shoving him in the limo; Parr was the first to see Reagan had been wounded and ordered the limo to divert to the hospital (instead of the White House), a critical decision as Reagan may have died had they gone to the WH first. Parr had a significant body of recognition related to this. It is possible to become important based on a single action. I'm not really seeking comment but we should be striving for a wide variety of fields for RD and this was an opportunity to post a rarely seen one that may be of interest to readers; in my opinion, a missed opportunity not in keeping with guidelines. 331dot (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, that's why we have WP:BLP1E, which Parr for the most part fits. Media will bias a BLP1E-meeting person, and we have to fight against that not just at ITN but elsewhere. We need to look at life-long contributions, not just a single event to judge importance. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment but I respectfully disagree. Police don't get much opportunity to have their deaths publicized in the media, meaning this part of Wikipedia is off-limits to them. I don't see how it helps readers to keep this death off the Main Page. 331dot (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- There's lots and lots and lots of people that ought to have more respect due to public service or working to improve the public good - police, fire fighters, soldiers, scientists, teachers, etc. - but they don't get the secondary coverage needed for an encyclopedic article or appear at ITN. That happens, we deal with it. ---MASEM (t) 03:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would add that the existence of his article speaks for itself, unless you are saying he does not merit his own article 331dot (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just because something exists doesn't mean it meets community consensus. I would argue that BLP1E applies fully to this situation, and Parr's article should be a redirect to the assassination attempt article. There is nothing remarkable about his life outside of a single decision that saved a person's life. Compare this to 2015 Thalys train attack - we don't have articles for two of the three people that subdued the gunner, and we only have one for Alek Skarlatos because he surpasses BLP1E (being on Dancing with the Stars). --MASEM (t) 03:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment but I respectfully disagree. Police don't get much opportunity to have their deaths publicized in the media, meaning this part of Wikipedia is off-limits to them. I don't see how it helps readers to keep this death off the Main Page. 331dot (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Two RD candidates needing attention[edit]
Honorable mention candidates of Argentine actress and Hungarian president might need attention, now that most recent RD candidates might fail. --George Ho (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Dell EMC acquisition not worthy of ITN in its current form[edit]
Guys, no need to beat the dead horse. Even if there was an issue, it is not there anymore. --Tone 18:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
Today's first ITN (diff) is Dell Inc. (article at 07:24, 13 October 2015) announces acquisition of EMC Corporation (article at 19:38, 13 October 2015). I clicked those article links to follow up on this apparently interesting story and AFAICS they 100% fail the third and fourth tests in the ITN criteria checklist that The Rambling Man invited me to propose in August:
- 3. Is the update sufficiently detailed? Updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient, e.g. a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. (per the second paragraph of ITN – Updated content)
- 4. Does the update present quality Wikipedia content on the current event? (per ITN – Purpose). At a bare minimum the update should be C class ("Useful to a casual reader") on the assessment scale.
It could be argued that—though these tests are reflect the long-documented ITN principles—it isn't helpful to use this checklist to filter current ITN candidates. I can see how assessment might imperil ITN because nowadays few editors are motivated to improve candidate stories before they are nominated. But if that's the way things work in 2015 the lowered ITN standards should be explicitly recognized so we can debate the potential consequences for enwiki. On the other hand, if ITN still has standards, they should be enforced via the Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates process. - Pointillist (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Pinging BorgQueen, the posting admin, who can explain their reasoning for posting. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem. The target article has been updated sufficiently, it does not exhibit any nasty maintenance tags, seems generally well referenced and is therefore perfectly suitable for the main page. It does not fail the two items listed above. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Per TRM, EMC_Corporation#Acquisition_by_Dell meets minimum standards noted above. I see no reason why this shouldn't have been posted. --Jayron32 12:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- We obviously have different expectations of C class. I was expecting something more like →this. - Pointillist (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- The classification scheme works on articles as a whole, not updates, right? You yourself confirmed that a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Also, is not the text "useful to a casual reader"? It contains all necessary details, in a form understandable to a casual reader, and is fully referenced. What specific details, for this specific story, are you reading in reliable sources, are omitted? Seems C-class quality to me... The article itself is also C-class at least as a whole (it isn't start- or stub- class...) so even we we interpret the instructions that way, it is ALSO sufficient. --Jayron32 14:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- As I see it, the Reader's experience column can apply to any unit of content. When the ITN was published the only mention in Dell was: On October 12, 2015, Dell announced its intent to acquire the enterprise software and storage company EMC Corporation. At $67 billion, it has been considered the highest-valued tech acquisition in history.[126][127] I'd say that was Start class at best. The mention in EMC was borderline C (didn't identify to the casual reader "the most relevant areas where IT is moving", perhaps a weakness in the cited sources). - Pointillist (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's nonsense. You can't apply the classification to five sentences. It may be five sentences in a six-sentence article or in a six-thousand sentence article. Your own criterion was met, as I noted above. While I appreciate your expansion, your claim that it wasn't fit for ITN is simply false. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- As I see it, the Reader's experience column can apply to any unit of content. When the ITN was published the only mention in Dell was: On October 12, 2015, Dell announced its intent to acquire the enterprise software and storage company EMC Corporation. At $67 billion, it has been considered the highest-valued tech acquisition in history.[126][127] I'd say that was Start class at best. The mention in EMC was borderline C (didn't identify to the casual reader "the most relevant areas where IT is moving", perhaps a weakness in the cited sources). - Pointillist (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- We obviously have different expectations of C class. I was expecting something more like →this. - Pointillist (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Per TRM, EMC_Corporation#Acquisition_by_Dell meets minimum standards noted above. I see no reason why this shouldn't have been posted. --Jayron32 12:55, 14 October 2015 (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.
Proposal: All RD listings remain up for seven days[edit]
The Rambling Man and myself have recently been disagreeing on the proper way to remove older RD listings from the template. The way they have traditionally been handled, and the way I believe community consensus prefers, is to remove them once they are older than the oldest blurb on the template or seven days from the date of death, whichever happens first. The Rambling Man, citing WP:COMMONSENSE, has adopted the habit of leaving them up for seven days regardless, RD space permitting, and restoring them if they are removed. I frankly don't give two shits one way or the other, but this really should be up to the community, and not the whims of any individual editor. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support per common sense, obviously. For the record, this was discussed above and although with limited participation, it was generally agreed that common sense should prevail, so it was hardly up to the whims of any individual editor. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why the happenstance of how quickly the main ITN listing turns over, would have anything to do with how long the RDs should remain listed. For that matter, I am not even sure how or why it would occur to someone to check the date of the oldest ITN item and compare it to the date of the oldest RD item, in order to apply a rule relating one to the other. Can someone explain how what Bongwarrior is describing as the traditional and consensus practice evolved or why it makes sense? In the absence of such an explanation, The Rambling Man's invocation of common sense would seem sensible here. (But I assume "all RDs should remain up for seven days" is not intended to trump "only three at a time"?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Definitely still three at a time. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why the happenstance of how quickly the main ITN listing turns over, would have anything to do with how long the RDs should remain listed. For that matter, I am not even sure how or why it would occur to someone to check the date of the oldest ITN item and compare it to the date of the oldest RD item, in order to apply a rule relating one to the other. Can someone explain how what Bongwarrior is describing as the traditional and consensus practice evolved or why it makes sense? In the absence of such an explanation, The Rambling Man's invocation of common sense would seem sensible here. (But I assume "all RDs should remain up for seven days" is not intended to trump "only three at a time"?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support. The "older than the oldest blurb on the template" rule is a holdover from when the RD line was an experimental appendage. Nowadays, it's treated more like a separate subsection of ITN, not a pared-down extension of the blurbs. Removing an RD item because an influx of news caused an unrelated blurb to be bumped adds needless complication and provides absolutely no benefit. It's to the detriment of the page's readers, for whom a useful link is replaced with an empty slot. "Leaving them up for seven days regardless, RD space permitting" is far more sensible. —David Levy 08:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support. At certain times of the year (Nobel Prize time, as we've seen recently, and many sporting events in early summer) there can be a very quick turnover on ITN, which could mean RDs getting removed very quickly (especially they sometimes don't appear until a couple of days after death). Leave them for 7 days, unless the oldest needs to be removed because there are too many RDs pending. Black Kite (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support a maximum of three, each remaining for seven days regardless of how quickly the main news blurbs are cycling through. "Seven days" in this context still has the meaning, I assume, of seven days since death (or, if different, date of announcement) not seven days since posting i.e. died on Monday, nominated on Tuesday, improved on Wednesday, posted on Thursday, tweaked on Friday, admired on Saturday, ignored on Sunday, removed on Monday. BencherliteTalk 09:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- No need to go all Craig David on us.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Solomon Grundy, I was thinking. The alternative version would be: died on Monday, nominated Tuesday, argued about nationalities on Wednesday, argued about sources on Thursday, ignored on Friday, posted on Saturday, pulled on Sunday, ANI on Monday... BencherliteTalk 10:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- No need to go all Craig David on us.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support Sensible and simpler than the current standard. I like the "Maximum of 3 entries/Maximum of 7 days" standard. Works for me. --Jayron32 13:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support. A common sense idea which should provide for consistency. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support Seven days, space permitting. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support per commonsense. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support Seven days, space permitting. Mamyles (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Seven days from posting, or from the decession? I'd support this if it said all listing shall stay up for a minimum of 156 and a maximum of 180 hours (i.e., 6.5 - 7.5 days) space allowing. I don't want a post that takes 4 days to go up being pulled off after 48+ hours just because of an arbitrary limit. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- There's no such word as "decession". But agree this needs to be totally clear. Do people know what they have voted for? 217.38.103.151 (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- 7 days from posting, space permitting. I think it's fairly clear that's what people are supporting ("leaving them up for 7 days"). And yes, that means something that is posted at 23:59 on Monday technically could be removed at 00:01 the next Sunday, having been on the main page for 7 separate days, but I think people will treat it sensibly. Black Kite (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't and shouldn't be as anal as to prescribe a number of hours on the ticker. Seven days means that when convenient to an admin, and after no less than seven days, an item will be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Rewording[edit]
Thankfully we seem to have a common sense consensus, so it's now just a case of rewording the admin instructions so we don't have any issues over the interpretation of what is normally and sensibly expected here.
Currently we have : No RD items are to be older than the oldest item on the template with a blurb; an RD item should be removed when it is older than any other item on the template.
I suggest this is replaced with RD items shall remain listed within the template for no longer than seven days after the date of death of the individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- The only thing I would argue on that is the rare case where the person's death was handled discretely for family/friends, and only made public several days later. We would date that nomination on the day the news broke , not on the date of death and that's when the RD timer should start. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- So you need to propose an "exception" clause. Thanks. Or, we could add something into the admin instructions just to remind us all to continue to use common sense, rather than act like some kind of automaton and blindly follow instruction regardless of the natural stupidity of it.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- If we're following process, it should be seven days from the date that the RD is filed at ITN/C. This date is normally the date of death, but as has come up before, when there has been a purpose media silence, we have generally posted that on the date that the news was reported publicly. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by "following process". We have a chance here to clarify how RD works, "following process" or "per community consensus" or whatever is really irrelevant here. RDs are filed on the date of death, what wording do you want to see? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Remember this discussion? [2] 99% of the RDs are filed at ITNC on the day the person died but per that discussion we recognize there are times that a period of mourning before publication of the death can happen so the RD is posted on the date of the news. As such, the 7 day timer on the RD ticker should start on the date that the ITN/C is listed under, which 99% of the time is the date of the person's date but rarely will be the date the person's death was actually in the news. Note this is not the date that the RD was added by a WP editor, it's the dates that event are filed under that matters. That keeps with your language and accounts for that one exception. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, once again please let me know what wording you would prefer to see. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- RD items shall remain listed within the template for no longer than seven days after the date of the ITN/C entry for the death of the individual. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cool, now we just need a new instruction as to when RDs are listed at ITNC, particularly those who match your criteria. Please make a proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Currently there is no specific instructions to anything dealing with RDs outside of tagging the template to mark it as an RD. I think also an element of common sense comes into play, if its clear that the person's death was purposely held quiet for allowing a period of mourning that would not work for ITN's process, we can be more lenient towards that; either way, saying "7 days from the date the ITN/C was filed under" over "7 days from the date of death" would not impact 99% of the other RDs that we have since those two dates are equivalent otherwise. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cool, now we just need a new instruction as to when RDs are listed at ITNC, particularly those who match your criteria. Please make a proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- RD items shall remain listed within the template for no longer than seven days after the date of the ITN/C entry for the death of the individual. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, once again please let me know what wording you would prefer to see. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Remember this discussion? [2] 99% of the RDs are filed at ITNC on the day the person died but per that discussion we recognize there are times that a period of mourning before publication of the death can happen so the RD is posted on the date of the news. As such, the 7 day timer on the RD ticker should start on the date that the ITN/C is listed under, which 99% of the time is the date of the person's date but rarely will be the date the person's death was actually in the news. Note this is not the date that the RD was added by a WP editor, it's the dates that event are filed under that matters. That keeps with your language and accounts for that one exception. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by "following process". We have a chance here to clarify how RD works, "following process" or "per community consensus" or whatever is really irrelevant here. RDs are filed on the date of death, what wording do you want to see? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- If we're following process, it should be seven days from the date that the RD is filed at ITN/C. This date is normally the date of death, but as has come up before, when there has been a purpose media silence, we have generally posted that on the date that the news was reported publicly. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- So you need to propose an "exception" clause. Thanks. Or, we could add something into the admin instructions just to remind us all to continue to use common sense, rather than act like some kind of automaton and blindly follow instruction regardless of the natural stupidity of it.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man, per what you said above, shouldn't it be "no less than 7 days"? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding the discussion above. SpencerT♦C 01:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, I've always said seven days from the date of death. I think the original posting's assertion was incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I assumed that the proposal's seven-day count began with the date of death (which is, indeed, what the Rambling Man has always said). That's how RD items are labeled, and ITN always goes by the event's date (not the posting date).
- I'm fine with the exception for deaths initially kept private. This is comparable to instances in which we treat the announcement of other occurrences (such as scientific discoveries) as the relevant "events". —David Levy 16:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I too agree that it's seven days from date of death, or from the date of the announcement of the death if later, not seven days from posting. I said so in the previous section but am repeating it here from clarity. Would RD items shall remain listed for no more than seven days after the date of death (or, if later, the date on which the death is announced). do the trick? BencherliteTalk 20:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose this, because what 7 days after the death means is that a good nomination that needs some work on the article will basically become stale very quickly. One of the points of listing at RD is to encourage article improvement. There are plenty of RD listings I have put work into that have not gone up right away. With a codified 7 days from decession rule, I simply wouldn't bother to put in the work. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- There's no such word as decession, as you've already been told. And I'm not sure I've ever seen the work you suggest you'll be not bothering to put in, but thanks for your comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, there is, although it's spectacularly obsolete. ‑ iridescent 21:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- There's no such word as decession, as you've already been told. And I'm not sure I've ever seen the work you suggest you'll be not bothering to put in, but thanks for your comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Good bye[edit]
I'm done with the transatlantic pissing contest and the flagrant and persistent abuse by some editors of WP:NOTFORUM. I have raised concerns about this on multiple occasions and the same crap continues unabated. Seriously, I have better things to do with my time than being subjected to regular lectures about American politics and culture on guns or whatever. While I have tried to contribute to ITN, things have reached the point where it is not a friendly environment and I am moving on. Presumably there are other projects or venues on Wikipedia where one can contribute without this incessant sniping. I am removing ITN and this talk page from my watchlist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, good luck. P.S. its not solely transatlantic, most of the world looks on in astonishment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I was legitimately undecided on that nomination when I asked questions comparing it to a U.S. gun violence nomination, as I am perturbed by what I see as inconsistent criteria being applied to items based on locale, which is completely against the purpose of ITN. I agreed with you hatting it once I had made up my mind to support it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, he shouldn't hat discussions he's directly involved in. Simple. A break is a good idea. By the way, there's no inconsistency, if you believe this to be "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history" then posting it despite not posting all the various minor school massacres that occur daily in the US isn't inconsistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I did not think he was involved. I see it started as a reply on his oppose. Well, I think someone should have hatted it, but if not, okay. Back to your logic, I don't think "the deadliest attack in X" is an ITN criteria; news coverage is. "Deadliest attack in X" sounds like a DYK hook. I hope you, Ad Orientem, come back because ITN needs more reasonable people. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Deadliest attack in a school in [country] is by far more worthy than "another American campus shooting" story. And no, Ad Orientum can't just add comments then close down a discussion as he wants. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- We should not be saying "this was a school killing in this country that hardly has them; this was a school killing in that country but that happens all the time so we can ignore that". School shootings - or any event where people purposely go to endanger the lives of innocents , regardless of where they occur - should be considered tragic; its just for ITN, to what degree is that ITN-worthy news, keeping in mind that we're not supposed to be a newspaper but instead an encyclopedic that will cover events that have long-term notability. And that's going to depend not directly on where it occurred, but on how many people it affect, the motives, the reactions, and the results of the incident. It's going to depend on people involved (particularly if anyone notable was involved), as well. We should not be trying to have a nationalistic or anti-nationalistic contest here. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. And I would argue that the discussion of gun control in the U.S. presidential race and proposed legislation being brought up in California in a 2016 ballot initiative shows that gun politics in the U.S. is highly newsworthy as a subject, and the Umpqua attack in particular has gotten significant coverage that its omission at ITN is unbecoming. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've tried to stay out of this as best I can, but it's hard not to see that certain editors have made political judgments and developed a political agenda that tend to guide whether they support or oppose certain nominations. As an Oregonian, for one, I was very disappointed to see the Umpqua Community College shooting story wasn't posted, with substantial loss of life and international headlines, as well as a highly unusual act of mass violence for such a small, rural community (yes, even unusual by U.S. standards). But it's even more disappointing to see some of the same people who shut down that nomination turn around and not just support the Sweden school stabbing nomination (which is their prerogative, although the hypocrisy is quite obvious), but bully opponents of the nomination and accuse them of having some sort of agenda. For all of the whinging about "college basketball coaches" getting into RD (when was the last time that happened, anyway?), it seems like there is an establishment of "regulars" here at ITN that tend to take a dismissive view of news events that happen in the United States and often make a point of opposing ITN nominations for being "America-centric". I don't think that's an appropriate lens through which to participate here; there are countries I hold a rather low opinion of, but I try to judge nominations on their merits rather than based on my personal politics. I try to do that throughout Wikipedia. It isn't less important here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. And I would argue that the discussion of gun control in the U.S. presidential race and proposed legislation being brought up in California in a 2016 ballot initiative shows that gun politics in the U.S. is highly newsworthy as a subject, and the Umpqua attack in particular has gotten significant coverage that its omission at ITN is unbecoming. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- We should not be saying "this was a school killing in this country that hardly has them; this was a school killing in that country but that happens all the time so we can ignore that". School shootings - or any event where people purposely go to endanger the lives of innocents , regardless of where they occur - should be considered tragic; its just for ITN, to what degree is that ITN-worthy news, keeping in mind that we're not supposed to be a newspaper but instead an encyclopedic that will cover events that have long-term notability. And that's going to depend not directly on where it occurred, but on how many people it affect, the motives, the reactions, and the results of the incident. It's going to depend on people involved (particularly if anyone notable was involved), as well. We should not be trying to have a nationalistic or anti-nationalistic contest here. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Deadliest attack in a school in [country] is by far more worthy than "another American campus shooting" story. And no, Ad Orientum can't just add comments then close down a discussion as he wants. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I did not think he was involved. I see it started as a reply on his oppose. Well, I think someone should have hatted it, but if not, okay. Back to your logic, I don't think "the deadliest attack in X" is an ITN criteria; news coverage is. "Deadliest attack in X" sounds like a DYK hook. I hope you, Ad Orientem, come back because ITN needs more reasonable people. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, he shouldn't hat discussions he's directly involved in. Simple. A break is a good idea. By the way, there's no inconsistency, if you believe this to be "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history" then posting it despite not posting all the various minor school massacres that occur daily in the US isn't inconsistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's unbiased objectivity when it's your opinion, but terribly biased editorialising when it's the opinion of someone else you disagree with. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)