Wikipedia talk:In the news

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dusty Rhodes[edit]

It's been five days so could someone please make a decision on it? I think there's consensus to post now. -- Scorpion0422 11:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Same with Zhou Yongkang, please. Colipon+(Talk) 00:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Was the decision ultimately to ignore it until enough time had passed, and then let it be archived without any action? GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Not from Ireland nor a cricketer. Plays a fake sport. Is American United Statesian. Next! –HTD 20:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been superseded by one below. Please take your "contributions" there. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Another case[edit]

Nothing more really to say here in this discussion. RFC a possibility, but at a later point. SpencerT♦C 00:30, 21 June 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.

I'm following suggestions to post here an exchange from Spencer's talk page, which relates to the matter of timely action on ITN nominations. Sca (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Zhou posting
Hi, Spencer. I'd be interested in your rationale for reopening and posting this ITNC, now a week old – which I closed 6/17 for that reason. Such tardy, belated postings make WP look amateurish, IMO. Sca (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
If an article is still eligible (not older than the oldest item) on the template, I see no reason it can't be posted if it's suitable for posting. I have posted "late" items before. I also don't think nominations should be closed on the basis of being "stale"; they should be closed if there is consensus not to post the item, IMO. But perhaps this is a discussion for WT:ITN. Best, SpencerT♦C 14:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
And to be clear, Spencer didn't reopen the nomination, I did as there was clearly still interest in it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Clearly? Well, Zanhe noted on 6/15 that it had five supports and three opposes, and said, "I guess it's the admin's call." No one posted any further votes, and no admin did anything with it for two days.
From a news standpoint – and we are talking about In the News – it was clearly an outdated story. Although I supported posting (on 6/12), it seemed obvious by 6/17 that its time had past, and indeed it was no longer in the news.
Oh well. Soon it will slough off ITN anyway. Yawn. Sca (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
As of 15:56 it was already gone. So it was on ITN for 10 hours. Rather a futile bureaucratic exercise, IMO. Sca (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
See WT:ITN if you have a genuine interest in this. Otherwise, addressing consensus seriously is far from amateurish. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: My position on closing ITN noms is to only close if there is consensus not to post. If an item is stale, it will rotate off ITN/C as the bot removes nominations that are older than 8 days, but until then, the article can always be improved up to that point and still posted. Sometimes ITN has high turnover, with all of it's items from the previous 2 days and other times there's stuff on there that is 2 weeks old. I'm always willing to post an item that is younger than the oldest item on the template if it's updated and has consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment nice to see Sca doing nothing constructive here at all. I particularly like the "Yawn" comment, that's really helpful. Well done. I look forward to seeing more comments of such a nature in the future so we can all see how ridiculous you are being. Plus ca change. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:NPA, WP:CIVSca (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with Spencer that nominations should not be manually closed as "stale" – that's the job of the bots. And the item was newer than the oldest ones on ITN, so it wasn't too old to post. I don't get why Sca thought it was "amateurish" to post it. -Zanhe (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's discuss the issue at hand. I would say that a simple solution to this issue is to introduce a "ping admin" button at the top of the ITN/C page, or for every admin who checks the page to check daily for an 'attention needed' tag. It is a legitimate concern when a story reaches a rough consensus on day 3 but no admins bother to check it until day 7 when it is too late to post. It's not anyone's fault really, and it has an easy solution. Colipon+(Talk) 19:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Admins have all kinds of reasons to get involved or not get involved. As you can, some editors have real grudges and will call foul whenever and wherever possible, even in Latin. If you guys want to do something actually practical, WP:RFA is that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Colipon: TRM is right, the problem is there are not enough administrators, especially ones familiar with non-Western cultures. If you do decide to take the RFA route per TRM's suggestion, you'll definitely have my support. -Zanhe (talk) 04:18, 20 June 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.

What is the current policy re: admins posting items they have already !voted on?[edit]

Unanimous agreement. ;) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 23 June 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.

It's a simple question, but a serious one, and it brought out some interesting response at the James Horner nomination. Namely: are admins allowed to post items they have already !voted on? What exactly is the policy here? I have further questions, but I want to take this one step at a time. Jusdafax 08:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • As I mentioned, I have already promoted probably dozens of items that I have supported (or even opposed). It was only ever done when a clear consensus (excluding my position) was evident. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    How many admins are there? I get the feeling that things should get posted faster than they are atm, so I would tend to say, if a consensus is clear (meaning the admin's vote is not decisive), he or she can post it even if they have supported or opposed the nomination. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with administrators who have voted on a nomination posting it if consensus is clear. WP:INVOLVED states:

    In straightforward cases ... the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion.

    Given that we have a fairly limited number of administrators that regularly post ITN items and most of them also participate in ITN/C discussions, preventing administrators from posting in such cases would exacerbate the difficulty of ensuring items are posted in a timely manner. Neljack (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with the comments above. If consensus is clear, it's fine for an involved administrator to post the item.
    Of course, a pattern of misjudgement regarding the clarity of consensus is problematic, but this seems more common among uninvolved admins (perhaps because those who've participated in a discussion are mindful of the need to post the item only when the outcome is obvious). —David Levy 11:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with the points made above. If consensus in favor of posting is clear, then it is not a problem for someone who has commented in favor of posting to post it. If there is significant disagreement about posting (or about the terms of the posting), then someone new to the discussion should weigh in. (The alternative is for a supporter of an obviously postworthy item to hang back and refrain from supporting posting, so that he or she can become the "uninvolved" person who actually does the posting. This just delays reaching consensus and doesn't help anyone, which is especially undesirable on a page where timeliness is a virtue.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Per Neljack, it depends entirely on the situation. A unanimously supported ITNR item, with dozens of commenters, which has been waiting at least 24 hours would be entirely non-controversial, and no one should ever have a problem with a voting admin also posting. There's nothing at all wrong with that. However, if there are close calls, or items which have not been settled yet, it's usually best to avoid posting if one has voted. There is no blanket rule one way or the other. --Jayron32 15:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with everyone above; no problems at all if consensus us clear. In particular, no conceivable problem posting as RD and allowing discussion to continue for blurb, if consensus is unanimous for one or the other. I think this question is answered, perhaps it's time for the next of Jusdafax's further questions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 23 June 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.

Freedom Flotilla III[edit]

Hello, is what someone might add the event on Freedom Flotilla III that is in Portal:Current events. Thanks.--Mohatatou (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mohatatou: If you want to nominate an event for the ITN box, please visit the nominations page and follow the instructions there to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
To give a first opinion, I don't think the article is sufficient enough as it is to be posted on the Main Page. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

June 18th[edit]

2 items under the June 18th heading require admin attention. Additionally, just fyi to the rest of the page, I will be out of country with unknown Internet access until mid August so I probably won't be available if you ping me for help regarding ITN items. Best, SpencerT♦C 02:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Time to add the Cuban Thaw[edit]

The Cuban Thaw has today culminated in a reesablishment of full diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba for the first time in over 50 years. Pandeist (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

We posted this at the beginning, I believe. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
That said, today's announcement might merit a re-nomination, or we may want to wait until the embassies actually re-open. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going ask, beginning of what? It was announced just hours ago. Pandeist (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:ITN/C. I was thinking of nominating this myself, though I'm ambivalent as to whether or not it should go up. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Pandeist: I was referring to this, which we posted back in December at the beginning of the whole US/Cuba thaw. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Technically that's to a different article, since it was decided that the thaw itself was an historically notable event worthy of individual coverage, apart from the more general "relations“ page. My guess would be that it will end up covering a period up to the lifting of the embargo, after which we'll be all thawed out. Pandeist (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas Winton[edit]

It is unacceptable to "close" an item that is still on the main page. Anything on the main page remains open to debate (whether it should be at ITN at all, whether it should instead be an RD, or its exact wording) until it is removed. There is opposition to this item, which in my opinion does not meet the criteria for being at ITN at all. Blurbs are reserved for heads of state and those of equal fame. His exact role in the alleged events seems vague and debatable; also, he "did not discuss his efforts with anyone; his wife found out what he had done only after she discovered a scrapbook in their attic"(!). Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no guideline or policy stating that debate must go on endlessly or that posted items must be kept open. In fact, endless debate can be disruptive and create acrimony and animosity. I understand that what you believe is your opinion, but it is just that, your opinion, which did not seem to sway many people. There is no policy saying that 'blurbs are reserved for heads of state and those of equal fame'; they are typically given to those who either die unexpectedly or who are tops in their field. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
After my comment, I count around 7 editors opposing the blurb, so that is obviously not true. The only thing that can be disruptive is closing a debate to curtail the consensus-based process and open debate. The discussion was also closed after much less than a full day, which is clearly unjustified. At the time the discussion was closed, several editors (as in: over half a dozen) had just started opposing the blurb, so it seems clear it was closed merely to prevent editors opposed to the blurb from weighing in. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
So you would like it kept open until you get the result you want? Are you also in the mind of Mjroots to know what his reasons were for closing? It's not a vote count but supports for a blurb also came in after your comment. The opposition seems to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT which does not stand up against the reasons for support. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The user who marked the discussion as closed clearly stated his personal opinion that the blurb should remain regardless of consensus. Also, closing a discussion after just a few hours (and much less than a full day) with the explicit, stated purpose of preventing opposing views from being voiced is clearly against the procedure. The blurb was at that time opposed by 8 editors, whereas those supporting it did not provide any other arguments than WP:ILIKEIT. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Please link to where Mjroots specifically said that his purpose in closing was to stifle or silence further opposition. Plenty of opposition views were stated; the discussion is not a vote count but a weighing of arguments. Support is not just ILIKEIT but reasoned, logical arguments relating to what the man did and what sources state about him. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
While I don't necessarily agree with User:Tadeusz Nowak, I think ITN ought to have the flexibilty to allow "lesser known" notable deaths to feature for a shorter time with a blurb. I so no reason why every item has to wait until it gets pushed off the bottom of the list. I'd be happy to see Nicholas Winton move back to RD after a day or two. Just my opinion. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I closed the discussion because, IMHO, it was becoming disruptive. For the record, the original nomination was for RD, but another editor said that it warrented a blurb and suggested one. I and a number of other editors supported the blurb. At the time it was posted, there was not a single "oppose blurb" comment, they only came after it was posted. Winton may not have been famous worldwide, but that is because he did not see himself as a hero, and kept his head down for many years before the story even came out. As others have said, he can be considered to have been at the top of his field (humanities). There is not rule that states only heads of state get a blurb, although it is almost certain that they will when they pass away. Neither is there a set time limit that a discussion should be open for before it is posted. These things are played very much by ear on a case-by-case basis. Those yelling "pull" and "RD" need to have the grace to accept that it got a blurb, and move on - much the same as I accept that the Formula E blurb ain't going to make it to MP. For those who want to make it a straight count, I make it 14 for blurb, 8 for RD and 2 pulls. A clear consensus for blurb by this method (not taking into account the strength of the case put forwared for the vote). Mjroots (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
There was not left enough time to debate this item. All discussion, including the pull comments, took place within much less than a full day. As you point out, he was not "famous worldwide" (I had never heard of him), and blurbs are generally reserved for people who are. I very much doubt that people of other nationalities with a comparable impact (e.g. an Indonesian person involved in the Indonesian civil war, or a Polish person involved in the anti-Soviet resistance) would make it to ITN. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If you would like to place a minimum time constraint on items, then you can suggest that. There's a systemic bias towards English-language interest items here, so you're probably right, an Indonesian would have more trouble getting support on this Wikipedia for the ITN item than an Englishman or American with similar credentials. But we have plenty of Wikipedias where I suspect English or American items of interest aren't posted routinely, but more local stories of interest are. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Would the death of somebody that saves 669 Nigerian kids from Boko Haram, or 669 Iraki kids from ISIS get posted on ITN? If tomorrow somebody nicknamed "[countryname]'s Mandela" should we post it? I think this is a fairly obvious English-centric example, where even people in the US (that are usually somewhat aware of UK events) had no idea this person existed before the "UK's Schindler dies" popped out in headlines. I wonder if he was actually widely-know in the UK either. Nergaal (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Nergaal: Winton was reasonably well known in UK following his appearance on That‍ '​s Life!. Mjroots (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a kind of "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" argument. When I posted the item, there was a clear consensus for a blurb. A clear one. Please let me know if otherwise. Subsequently we had a few dissenters and a few post-posting supporters, as some ITN candidates suffer. All this "well if it'd been an Indonesian" or "if it was a ISIS saviour" argument is pretty much a waste of time. We need to actually assess each item individually. I can pretty much (personal opinion warning) guarantee that if news arises of an individual saving hundreds from ISIS or saving hundreds from Boko Harem then it would be well worth us posting it. In the meantime we just get on with things, post per consensus and discuss subsequently. If we need a change of process that mandates we wait, or mandates that nominations remain permanently open so they can be continually pulled/reposted/pulled etc based on new votes, then that should be proposed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: "... if news arises of an individual saving hundreds from ISIS or saving hundreds from Boko Harem then it would be well worth us posting it": It's not the event in itself that was posted, it was the death of a person claiming (or claimed to have) credit for it, over 70 years later, who does not appear to be that widely recognised for his role (compared to e.g. Nelson Mandela or other obvious ITN candidates). During the 1930s, enormous amounts of people died or were rescued, we are talking millions of deaths in Soviet-ruled Ukraine before WWII alone; in that perspective, I wonder which events of that era we would actually post. The number of refugees in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s is tens of millions, I suspect there are tens of thousands of people who could claim comparable credit as the subject of the article in question. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
So his living those 70 years somehow lessens his achievement? My word. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
No, not doing anything else in these 70 years that is news-worthy lessens his stake at taking an ITN spot. Nergaal (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
So in order to get posted to ITN someone must be continually famous their entire lives? One-shot wonders need not apply? (or people whose fame was not immediate?) 331dot (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
(ec) None of this is really important. Arguments starting "I suspect...." and "I wonder...." don't achieve anything I'm afraid. We base our promotions to the main page on consensus. We had that, we still have that. Personal opinions and strawman arguments are allowable, but will not necessarily be acted upon. If there's a criterion in the ITN process that needs changing, feel free to make a proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe someone should have started another World War or two? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Give it time... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think when it comes to RDs, if you have to explain in the blurb why the person was famous, they should not get a full blurb. Am I missing something? Nergaal (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    Seems like a reasonable thought, but it's certainly not written in guidance anywhere. Moreover, consensus will trump this kind of opinion. And this kind of thing will probably serve to reinforce systemic bias rather than act against it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    You may be right. The problem with the item in question however was that it is an example of systematic bias. If he was known to any degree at all, it was only in the UK (I'm not convinced he was that widely known there either). Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    That he was possibly known only in the UK is of no relevance to ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It is irrelevant where he is famous. If you say "Mandela died", or "Actor Robert Williams died", or "Pavarotti died" the large majority of readers from anywhere in the world will know about it. If instead you have to take 3 lines on ITN to explain why he is famous, then you are way too far off from the standard set by the likes of Mandela, Williams or Pavarotti. Nergaal (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Notable people are not all equally notable, even when they die. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Then suggest a criteria that says if we need three lines to explain it, it shouldn't be a blurb. Consensus in this case is against you. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it part of Wikipedia's mission to educate? Mjroots (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Meanwhile 150,000 people viewed his article in the first days of July, and it hasn't resulted in anyone coming to ask why it was on the Main page. Stephen 22:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)