Wikipedia talk:In the news

GTA 5 reaches $1Billion

What happened to that story? Saw it yesterday briefly and today it's gone. Robvanvee 07:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Quietly removed to be replaced by the all-important Gaelic football shit? –HTD 09:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, bumped as oldest item in place of the German Federal election. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

WT:ITNR#What to do with items on the list that did not have a discussion at ITNR

New discussion ^^. –HTD 10:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I came here to start the same discussion... My comment is same as i made in Emmy nomination. Discussion for ITN/R need not be in ITN/R talk page and if the discussion took place in ITN/C it is still equally valid. Emmy's have been posted without any objection to ITN/R before which gives it consensus to remain on ITN/R. "No Discussion" should not be used as technicality whenever we feel like it... if something on ITN/R gets posted one year then another discussion should take place to remove it. -- Ashish-g55 14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Would you (or anyone else) oppose to move the discussion I started there to here? It is a good idea to have discussions here instead of elsewhere on pages people don't visit or even exist. –HTD 14:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus/accountability

What is this? There is no consensus and its explicitly mentioned as reason what is WP:IDONTLIKEIT; then the story was moved up and down per the admin whims with no conssensus (even though a discussion was formulated at ITNC? Why do you even need discussions?(Lihaas (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)).

If you follow the discussion, the death toll increased after most of the oppose votes, making it more newsworthy. You are still free to object on its discussion page. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Update requirements

As per tradition its been decided that some 3-4 lines and about at least 2 sources are needed as an update requirement. Yet sometimes this is completely ignored and not even recitified. There has been no proposal either at this talk page or through ITNC that posting on ITN in order to generate updates is acceptable. Yet activist admin/s deem fit on their own premise without any consensus to use that/their onw criteria. (and then keep it up). So lets determine an enforceable criteria of update.

one idea is: 3-4 lines of prose with at least 2 sources.Lihaas (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• There should not be set criteria; the needed update should be evaluated on an case-by-case basis. There are cases where a couple lines might be enough; there are cases where a few paragraphs are needed. It's different in each case. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas' proposal is quite reasonable. I have spent a half hour (and that is a lot of personal time) looking for update material for Tom Clancy. And beyond the barest of trivia or making it up, getting five good sentences is not easy in all cases. I'd still prefer at least three separate sources, though. Maybe at least two sentences with three sources from at least two different nations. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm with 331dot. There should not be set criteria. Many of our RD candidates simply die of old age. For such cases, one excellent source and one sentence is surely enough. Even in the Clancy case, where he was relatively young (just a little bit older than me!), there isn't really much presented. New stuff from obituaries should go in the relevant parts about the subject's life, not his death. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll third the opinion of 331dot and HiLo48. Let's evaluate items on a case-by-case basis, especially those items that are nominated for the death ticker. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Fourthed (is that even a word?) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Fifthed. No set criteria, judge every item on its merits and try to trust posting admins... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• (Copy of what I wrote above and giving my perspective as an admin when I'm assessing whether or not an article is postworthy): Personally, how I apply this when assessing candidates is that any full blurb item needs to have 5 sentences/3 refs at bare minimum. If you can't find enough information to write that much about it in an article, then 99% of the time it's not notable enough. For RD items, the intention of that section is to focus on the subject's entire life, so I selectively relax the sentences/refs rule in favor of analyzing the whole article (not that I don't do that for full blurb items, it's just that I consider the whole article the "updated content"). So for RD, no there is no arbitrary number of sentences/references, but the arbitrary standard is B-class article as a whole. Spencer^T♦C 07:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with this view. RD should definitely be relaxed for obvious reasons (and I would go as far as saying that elections should have updated results and a quick summary in prose attached), but if another event is so unsubstantial that its update is weak, then what good is it to highlight it on the front page? The reader would at least have nothing "current" to take note of when reading through it. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
    • RD can be relaxed but if the update is as long as the blurb would be then that sort of sucks too. ITN as a whole including RD should be featuring updated content. Now if the death caused the article to be expanded i would be OK with that as well since the update need not be only about the death. That would stress the point that we are not breaking news and an update is required before anything goes up on ITN -- Ashish-g55 20:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
      • The point of a wiki is to encourage everyone to edit it and improve it. Admins should be trusted to decide whether an update is adequate, based on the article. Once items are posted at ITN, they will be more visible and improved. Why prevent that from happening just because the update hasn't matched some arbitrary statistical threshold? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Main page doesn't need to be used to encourage people to improve wiki. it should be used to feature good quality articles that are updated. People can still update that article as much as they like even when its not on main page. TFA doesnt post non-featured articles so they can get to featured status. ITN shouldnt post content that hasnt been updated either. There doesnt need to be statistical threshold but if all you got is one line then something is wrong -- Ashish-g55 21:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Sadly that's completely incorrect. The main page is exactly where we should try to attract new editors. By the way, no-one said ITN should post content that hasn't been updated. A one line update could be perfectly acceptable. As long as the rest of the article is updated correctly, it's just fine. Some people here need to get over it, we're never going to be perfect; trying to get people involved is part of the ethos, hanging around waiting to post articles that are in the news until we hit some arbitrary update threshold is nonsense. And we have admins. Most of the time, admins can judge this things correctly (although the Glee guy was a total joke, mistakes do happen, but infrequently). Time to wrap this up, dismiss the arbitrary statistical requirement for update, and get on with better things. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Should "I'd support this if the article was better" come with obligations?

A lot of items here receive posts like the above. If an item gets too many posts like this it doesn't get posted. It tends to happen far more often with items from outside the sphere of our systemic bias. Items from countries other than the UK and US (and maybe Canada) tend to miss out, even though a lot of people apparently think they are worth posting. (That's what the "I'd support this if..." part is saying.) Is this what we really want? I'm going to make the radical suggestion that no-one should make a post of that nature unless they're actually willing to do something about the "inadequate" article. Maybe only a small improvement, but something. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't mind such a suggestion if it comes with specific suggestions for improvement(i.e. needs more information about so-and-so's career, a certain event, etc.) but a vague "needs to be better" or "update not enough" should be weighed accordingly if no suggestions are given for improvement.331dot (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Vehemently Oppose not everyone has time to rummage around for sources to update article content. This suggestion essentially says "you can only have an opinion if you contributed to the article", and that anyone else should just "do whatever it is they do". I find this to be extraordinarily derisive and elitist. The onus should be on the nominator to ensure that the article is ready (or close to) for the main page before nominating. Regarding the usual whining about "US systemic bias", English speaking editors of the English Wikipedia may struggle with foreign language sources (such as Vietnamese), or with regions lacking a free press (such as The Gambia). Stabbing your finger out defiantly and demanding "so fix it, or close your mouth" is flatly wrong. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Why should the onus be on the nominator? Nominators can be busy people too. If an item deserves posting, surely we ALL have a responsibility to bring the relevant article up to scratch. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think this is workable. If someone who doesn't edit the article puts forward a valid point about the notability of an item it is infeasible for a deciding admin to ignore that statement. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about notability. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• No this is a wiki, it has no obligations. Admins judge consensus and should be sensible enough (most of the time, i.e. not Glee guy) to assess the feeling of the community. Many people pop into Wikipedia for a short time and can't afford the additional obligation of heading off to find sources, writing prose, etc. In fact, many ITN regulars rarely contribute to articles, many of them have 90%+ of their edits in the Wikipedia namespace. We need to be realistic. A "support in principle" is just fine, admins need to be responsible enough to handle that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

So who IS going to make the article improvements? In too many cases nobody does it now, and nominations that many people think SHOULD be posted don't make it through lack of updates.

• If people want to battle CSB, they should at least comment on nominations so that it'll progress to something. Just under September 29, there are four(!!!!) nominations that either died, are ignored or needed a follow-up... and all of them would've been stale anyway by now. >_< –HTD 19:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The responses above, some of which I've responded to individually, sadly prove that our systemic bias exists, and that some think it's not their business to try to do anything about it. I know the bias will be with us forever, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to minimise it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• The specific proposal may not work, but I do sympathise with HiLo's point. We all need to make an effort to combat systemic bias. I find it particularly irritating when I raise systemic bias as an issue and others respond by telling me to nominate/update more items from under-represented areas. The whole point about systemic bias is that it's, well, systemic. It can't just be solved by an individual. Now there are some people here who do great work updating items that probably wouldn't get posted otherwise because of systemic bias (I think of Luke in particular), but the people I'm talking about often don't seem to be among them. So I would strongly suggest that, if people are going to dismiss concerns about whether posting a particular item would be systemic bias by saying the person raising the issue should nominate/update more items from underrepresented areas, they make sure that they too are actually nominating and updating such items. Because otherwise I'm not sure they're in much of a position to tell others that they should be doing more. Just because someone raises the issue of systemic bias, it doesn't mean that the obligation to address it is theirs alone, rather than everyone's. Neljack (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • "Our systemic bias", lol, the bias is in the international press from which WP sources most of it's articles. Don't like the coverage? Fly to The Gambia and report on it. If all thats available is dozens of minor edits to a handful of wire stories which had zero investigative follow-up to the initial incident, stomping your fists and sobbing about "our systemic bias" isn't going to help. I'm so sick and tired of hearing about it. Get some investors, some journalists, go to some under-represented region of the world and actually do some reporting. WP does what it can with limited resources. Ugh. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    • No, while the media obviously have systemic bias too, there are more than enough stories in the media from the Global South etc for us to post if we nominated and updated them. Neljack (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• The proposal sounds good on paper, but I think is likely to have counterproductive effects - given the usual climate around ITN, the following discussion is probably inevitable within a week:

A: We should list the article about XYZ, I think it's really important

B: I don't know much about XYZ and don't have access to the sources, but it's apparent that that article has serious problems and it's not clear it's actually significant.

A: As you haven't fixed the article, I'll ignore this. I think it's important and should go up. There are no meaningful objections, so can someone post it?

B: ...wtf?

Andrew Gray (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sports sticky (a la RD)

Akin to the permanent sticky for recent deaths, id like to propose the articles "XXXX in sports" (ie- this year would be 2013 in sports), the calendar at the top has a dgood update/summary of whos won what in the tournaments and would (partially) take tacare of sports updates (esp. not ITN ones). Iits similar to the deaths...and could also set perhaps future precedence to election links going ot the electoral calendar. It COULD portentially curb the list of ITNR artiles tooLihaas (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sport retirements

Seeing some of the comments for the Tendulkar nom i have a concern over how we approach sport retirements. IMHO there are some that should be posted and they should be done similarly to a blurb for deaths ie extremely notable. I would like to start a per-approved list of sport names that deserve a blurb when they retire. This would eliminate any potential systemic bias as they will be pre-disucssed and also avoid any heated debates in future. Couple of names that come to mind that SHOULD be posted besides Tendulkar are:

• Tiger Woods
• Roger Federer

Obviously there are more... please suggest them. My main concern is that when these players retire some will be posted without a doubt and others rejected either out of pure ignorance of sport or systemic bias which is just not good. If the list is kept to rare/extremely notable then there should be no problem however if we post coaches like Alex Ferguson and then ignore players like Tendulkar/ones above then something is very wrong -- Ashish-g55 00:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree with the idea of creating a list of essentially pre-approved names for retirements to be posted; they should be discussed if and when they happen, as we do with everything else. Debates is essentially what we are all about here, there is no need to avoid them- they are bound to get heated regardless of any list. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • perhaps pre-approved is wrong term to use. My point is more to discuss what kind of sport figure retirements should be posted on ITN -- Ashish-g55 01:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Applying the standard that the person must be regarded as one of the greatest players/athletes of all time in a major international sport, I would suggest (in addition to those already mentioned):

• Richie McCaw
• Dan Carter
• Lionel Messi
• LeBron James
• Usain Bolt
• Rafael Nadal
• Serena Williams

There may, of course, be others. Neljack (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• It would be better to take these case-by-case as they occur. 1) We can't predict exactly how newsworthy a retirement will be and 2) Sportspeople can retire in different ways: some may formally retire after a long period of being inactive due to injury, some will gradually fade-out their careers, playing fewer and fewer games as they age (for example cricketers tend to retire progressively from different forms of the game). Case-by-case is best. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 06:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• To be clear, I agree that we should not have a predetermined list and instead evaluate nominations at the time they are made in light of all the relevant circumstances. However, I did find going through other sportspeople who would qualify under the standard I was applying helpful in determining whether it was too liberal and would result in too many retirements being posted. Neljack (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes point is to discuss the type of players that should be posted. I think your list is too liberal and i would take out nadal and williams as they do not hold records similar to Roger Federer. Also LeBron i wouldnt consider since he isnt necessarily top of the sport either. He got the media after him sure but he is no Michael Jordan. I would lean more towards Kobe Bryant if anything -- Ashish-g55 13:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but who are Richie McCaw and Dan Carter? Looking at page view stats, and if these people truly "at the top of their respective fields", they should have massive page views:

• Richie McCaw: 15705
• Dan Carter: 12866
• Lionel Messi: 479410
• LeBron James: 197153
• Usain Bolt: 140208
• Rafael Nadal: 164059
• Serena Williams: 94056

And comparison's sake:

• Sachin Tendulkar: 137465 in September, to offset the massive view stats right now.
• Manny Pacquiao: 233319 (Dunno what happened on September 15.)

–HTD 14:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read their articles. McCaw and Carter are widely regarded as being among the greatest players in the history of rugby union, which is a major international sport. I stand by their inclusion. Neljack (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Are they like retired? –HTD 03:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Apparently this is a stupid question. lol. –HTD 03:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

They are New Zealand rugby players and your user page says you are a New Zealander with an interest in rugby. They are probably huge among New Zealand rugby fans but they are minor figures in the World of sports compared to the others on the list and lots of athletes not on the list. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

They are not, by any standard, "minor figures in the World of sports". They have a stature in rugby similar to that of Tendulkar in cricket (i.e. they are regarded as being among the greatest players of all time), and rugby is a major global sport just like cricket. Neljack (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

By the standard of global public and media interest they are certainly minor compared to the others who have many times more page views and Google hits. Google reports less than a million hits for them and tens of millions for the others. For professional athletes, earnings also say something about public interest and although their earnings may be high for rugby players, they earn peanuts compared to the others. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You know, rugby union has poor view stats here in the English Wikipedia. For example, the 2012–13 Euroleague has a slightly higher page views than 2012–13 Heineken Cup. –HTD 10:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• I wonder how people (especially non-Americans) would have evaluated Mariano Rivera had his retirement been nominated a couple weeks ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Tendulkar's article was viewed 41274 times today; Rivera's article was viewed 63585 times on his final game with the Yankees; he announced his retirement on March, when it was viewed 32824 times in three days. –HTD 14:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I am opposed to thisnotion of starting a list of pre-approved candidates when the idea itself is largely opposed, and if anyone wants to start a new category he should file a formal RfC. Any other result will be meaningless. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Heh. It's like making another list like ITNR. We all know how that turned out... –HTD 03:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Turned out fine except for a small cadre of dedicated opposition who attacks the list at every turn. (Challenging the legitimacy of items on the list, routinely declaring it broken, insisting that no consensus to keep == remove (eliminating items through attrition), challenging ITN/R noms at ITN/C, etc etc etc etc pattern of constant derision and attack) --76.110.201.132 (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
          • That's because ITNR is meant for blurbs which have consensus each and every time it is suggested. For example, no one's gonna oppose the Olympics or the UK general election. Once people started adding -- sometimes without discussion -- their pet events, it became a magnet for really long discussions which ended in it being posted anyway because it was in ITNR, even though it wasn't discussed in the first place! More so in removing it because "no consensus" meant keep instead of removal; but if there's no consensus of it being listed there, it shouldn't be there in the first place! (lol) –HTD 15:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment If you do this for sports celebrities, you'll have to do it for film, television, recording, etc. Daniel Day Lewis or Elton John announcing retirement or Metallica/Rolling Stones/AC-DC/U2 disbanding is easily as significant to their large fan bases as some football coach or cricketer. Maybe you could just turn the box into the E! online gossip ticker? There is no difference, I mean absolutely none whatsoever, between hitting a ball with a bat or playing fast guitar riffs. These items are only news because of the level of celebrity of the persons. You might also want to consider corporations retiring (going out of business), which is routinely opposed here. I think that a corporation with tens of thousands of employees going under is infinitely more significant than the boss of a ball kicker saying he's retiring. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Cyclone Phailin, developing story

ITN participants might be interested in monitoring our article on Cyclone Phailin, which will become a major news story tomorrow. This is a monster storm in the Bay of Bengal, tracking toward the coast of India, where it may make landfall near the city of Visakhapatnam, with 2 million inhabitants. See http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/10/10/india-cyclone-phailin/2960629/. Even in the best case this will kill thousands of people, and in the worst case it may kill hundreds of thousands. (For those who don't know, a "cyclone" in the Bay of Bengal is the same thing as a "hurricane" in the Atlantic.) Looie496 (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Requiring sources and a complete nomination

I think the rule about including sources when creating a nomination should be more strictly enforced. Also, there should be a rule stating that users must fill out as much of a nomination as they can. There have bee quite a few nominations recently which have had no sources or are incomplete. Andise1 (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment but we should not bite the newcomers or write everything down. For an example of the former, the poster of the gold story contacted me to state that they didn't know how to post sources, after I stated that no sources were with the nomination. The ITN nominating instructions already state that verifiable sources should be provided in the nomination; I am less concerned about new or irregular users doing so than regular nominators who know better(we know who they are). My suggestion would be to either simply point out information is missing from a nomination, or withhold your support of one you might like until it contains the information needed. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why this matters that much. Does no one else check the sources in the article update? That should be sufficient enough. Having sources in the ITN/C nomination seems redundant. Spencer^T♦C 05:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been here a while, and I still find the nomination process unbelievably complex and frustrating. If an item really does deserve posting because it IS "In the news", it must never depend on an editor knowing all the details of a ridiculously bureaucratic process. HiLo48 (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Sources in the nom are no doubt helpful, but opposing an otherwise suitable event because of a lack of them is putting process before improving the encylopaedia. Wikipedia is (supposedly) not a bureaucracy. Neljack (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Bringing up past nominations or postings

I have noticed people bring up past postings in nominations when it is completely unnecessary. An example of this is the posting of Cory Monteith to Recent Deaths. People are still bring up that posting ("this event or person is more important that the Glee person", "this person is notable and has not been posted, but the guy from Glee was?, etc.) and the fact of the matter is that that posting happened in the past, and you can't change the past. We all know that Cory Monteith was posted to Recent Deaths. We all know people were against him being included in Recent Deaths. That was months ago. This is now. Referencing a posted nomination from months ago which provides no helpfulness to a discussion, should not be allowed. Obviously there are some cases where this should be acceptable, but when a person or event is repeatedly brought up (i.e. Cory Monteith), then I feel this is not acceptable. Andise1 (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Awwwww. Can't I bring up the travesty that was the 2010 World Cup stickied for a month despite zero prose being added? Which brings me, are you guys doing that again next year? w000t. –HTD 09:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Precedent is brought up all the time here. It's one of our inevitable guidelines. That a nobody from an unimportant TV show made it here, and far more important people don't, especially those with non-mainstream non-American fame, must never be forgotten. I will never drop the fight against our systemic bias HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Questions:

1. How can nobody's death be reported in places as exotic as the Philippines? If it's been reported in places such as that for a week, that person surely isn't a "nobody".
2. Which TV show is important? Doctor Who? (lol)
3. Why are we penalizing "mainstream American" fame? Why not add more "non-mainstream non-American" events that is in the news instead of disallowing "mainstream American" events that's in the news? –HTD 10:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent question. Why not indeed? I nominate them. They die through seeming lack of interest, presumably from the massively dominant (and therefore important?) American demographic I am repeatedly told we have here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree with you on this, but not on "dominant (and therefore important?) American demographic" part. I've nominated several items outside the Anglosphere, and unless it's India or a massive natural disaster, the discussion is as good as dead, or follow-ups on oppose votes are never followed up at all, leading to stale discussions. I don't attribute this to Americans though as people, even those who are fighting the American demographic here, don't even comment on such nominations. –HTD 10:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem though with the American situation is that, while people from other places are inevitably willing and perhaps are forced to accept and acknowledge that other places exist, and that what happens there can be important, that's much less common for Americans. It IS a big country, in many ways, able to provide almost everything it needs from within its own borders, and its residents realistically don't have to pay much heed to the rest of the world in much of their lives, so they don't. It's as if it's a complete world unto itself. We see posts such as the one I saw on a Ref desk the other day beginning with something like "Does our government...?", at no stage explaining who the "our" referred to. Yes, it became clear from the rest of the post, and I don't condemn that editor, but he clearly didn't realise how odd his post would seem to a non-American. He was treating Wikipedia as an American entity, not a global one, without even realising what he was doing. Again, no criticism. It's just how things are. An awful lot of Americans don't treat this as a global place, because they're not used to considering themselves as part of anything more than America. They don't have to. And sadly, some who do realize that's there is a "rest of the world" out there, definitely treat it as inferior. I regard American exceptionalism as a very valuable article. This is not a criticism of anybody. It's an attempt to explain and understand for myself why things are the way they are, to understand our systemic bias, and to work out if there's anything we can do about it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

TBH, that's irrelevant. Long discussions on U.S. topics means there is a discussion, unlike non-Anglophone noms outside India that barely get commented upon. As long as there's a discussion, it's OK; what's not OK is no discussion since that means no chance of being posted.

Also, the suggested replacements, or additions to U.S. items are either from the UK, Australia or even Ireland, which is really not diverse at all: same old white guy stuff. Really, our answer to comabatting U.S. bias in Super Bowl is hurling? Why not Japanese baseball or Latin American football? –HTD 23:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Trouble is, even Australians items don't make it, mostly through lack of interest. Two recent RD nominations from me, of quite significant Australians, just died. They were broadly but thinly supported (apart from by Medies but that just made me feel I was probably on the right track), but nobody posted them. I truly don't know why they weren't posted. Is falling off the bottom of the list because no posting admin cared enough meant to be one of our criteria? HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

RD nominations are cheap. Try nominations for regular blurbs. The Australian, German and Philippine elections were delayed for far too long; the last one delayed so fucking bad it only lasted hours in the Main Page. There should be like something that before an admin posts something, s/he should look for discussions that aren't marked and mark it so that the nominators and updaters of stale discussions know they have a shot. Again, this is not like ITN/C has a deluge of noms, so this shouldn't be enough work. –HTD 10:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you seek out an admin to review the page and decide to post it or not? If they were supported this should not have been an issue. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No? Why should I have to? Is this part of our process? Where is it documented? Who do I ask? (Was this required for the Glee non-entity?) HiLo48 (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Admins would have to look at every discussion if there's a way forward. This is not like DYK which is deluged with nominations. –HTD 10:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It might not be a formal part of the process, but if it was me and I wanted something posted, and I felt there was enough support, I might flag down an admin I know to frequent ITN and just ask them to review it to see if they agree there is support. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I know admins are not paid, but there really is dearth of nominations -- 12 currently -- it's not impossible for an admin to check out one blurb that's not marked or yells [Attention needed]. Nominators shouldn't have to beg for admins to post their blurbs. –HTD 10:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an excellent analysis of the problem. Neljack (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It may be a good analysis, but I don't think this is exactly the right forum to be a warrior in the systemic bias battle. That deals with a larger area of Wikipedia than just bringing up precedents in ITN nom discussions. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

But the Glee precedent was a classic example of our systemic bias. Those who don't understand the bias tend not to want to discuss it. HiLo48 (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

How so? For me, I use the Channel News Asia example. That is a news channel based in Singapore. Nothing much happens in Singapore; there's no significant parliamentary opposition, so much of their news is from outside SG and even outside Southeast Asia. They reported on things such as the Glee dude, Eurobasket, Premier League for days (for the latter example, every matchday) but not events such as hurling, Tom Foley dying and the like. That's the basis I use in seeing which is at least to be considered for ITN. Not perfect, but certainly better than my own idea of what should posted In the News despite it being not in the news, and declining events in the news because I'd rather decline certain items to fight bias than suggest new ones -- OR COMMENT existing ones. –HTD 10:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

But world news also has its own systemic bias, towards what provides good pictures, and what's readily available. The latter often means American. Again, because America is big, it generates more "news" content. Not necessarily great content, but plenty of it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This section is called "In the News", not "What I think should be in the news". The best way to fight systemic bias is to add more legitimate items, not decline on legitimate ones. Segregation was defeated not because they started accepting lesser number of whites who qualify, but by accepting more blacks who qualify (and by not accepting blacks just for the heck of it). –HTD 10:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• There is a difference between simply bringing up what has been done before and (as I see done with the controversial Monteith posting) the manner in which it is done (such as saying "we posted that stupid 'Glee guy' so how could we not post this"(my words)). It is possible to point out precedent without being dismissive and offensive. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Just imagine if ITN already when James Dean died. Not saying James Dean=Glee guy but... –HTD 12:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• • The Glee posting set a precedent and Tariq should always be reminded of his actions doktorb _words^deeds 23:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
    • How does this help the project? Really? For a user who calls himself a "doctor" that's childish to the utmost degree. I still LOL at the outrage. –HTD 23:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
      • There is also a difference between merely pointing out something that was done before and using said precedent to remind any user of "his actions" that the person making the reminder feels was improper. If you have an issue with a user's actions, there are forums to properly make such complaints; there is no need to bog down ITNC discussions with issues unrelated to the merits of the nomination such as that. 331dot (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
        • If so many people agree that posting the Glee non-entity was a mistake, what have been the consequences? An apology from the posting Admin? A punishment for him. What's to stop it happening again? HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Using the ITNC page to seek vengeance or punishment against an admin for a perceived mistake is not the purpose of the ITNC page. That's not just pointing out precedent, in support or opposition to a nomination. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
            • Agreed. And I wasn't really seeking vengeance or punishment. I'll just repeat my last question. What's to stop it happening again? HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
              • You mean like how Tom Foley was posted without consensus just the other day? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                • That was removed due to lack of discussion, an action which even I (the nominator) agreed with. I'm not sure why that didn't happen in the other case. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                  • The point is that it shouldn't have been posted in the first place. Just another example.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                    • Pretty much proves whining about the Glee dude doesn't solve things. –HTD 10:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                      • Yes indeed! Let's just let it carry on then, shall we?! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                        • Well of course you have better ideas of avoiding this happening again since whining each and every fucking time apparently doesn't work and apparently pisses several people off. –HTD 10:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                          • Well, starting with the admins who made errors, they should refrain from posting again. I had also suggested that these rapid posts were allowed to wait a while before the mad rush to post an RD, that got thrown out. Oh, and do try to stay calm. Swearing doesn't help further your "opinion". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                            • I gotta say topic banning someone without a real discussion isn't a solution and will go nowhere. As for your other solution, well too bad for you; you can still think of something aside from whining, right? –HTD 10:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                              • • They abused their admin rights, albeit in a tiny microcosm of Wikipedia. Bad judgement etc. And as for the other solution, no, too bad for Wikipedia. We've seen two RDs rushed to the main page lately, putting the brakes on would have helped. And whining? Not me. I just compare items to those which were rushed to the main page. At least you've stopped swearing though, thanks for that! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                            • You seem to excel at telling people what doesn't work. How about what WILL work? HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                              • If you were referring to me, I suggested of reviewing unmarked topics at ITN (not a difficult task) before posting something. That's a better solution than whining or topic banning. I also suggested everyone, including systemic bias warriors, on commenting on stale discussions as that actually results in something if the nomination has a chance. –HTD 10:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)