Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 298: Line 298:
:::P.S. The hash (pound) doesn't normally screw things up, just don't put a space after it and the name of the section heading. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 23:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
:::P.S. The hash (pound) doesn't normally screw things up, just don't put a space after it and the name of the section heading. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 23:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
::There’s also [[David Buckel]], which I nominated about the same time as Judy Kennedy and which was posted with no opposition. [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 00:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
::There’s also [[David Buckel]], which I nominated about the same time as Judy Kennedy and which was posted with no opposition. [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 00:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' I think we're trying to deal with a non-problem here. Just because a couple of nominations were rejected for one reason or another, including concerns over notability, it doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Clearly admins could have assessed that the rejection of completely sound RDs on the grounds that they were posthumously created articles to be incorrect and posted otherwise, but they didn't, and so there's literally no problem here. Naturally, and as ever, if we don't like posting the way post RDs (which I think has been a 100% wholesale success, no need to thank me etc etc) then we can launch an RFC to debate it. These edge cases are worthy of discussion on their merit. Nothing more. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 00:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:07, 17 April 2018

Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Jan-Mar)

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

Other resources

For those who don't take their daily dose of news from an encyclopedia, breaking news stories can also be found via news aggregators (e.g. Google News, Yahoo! News) or your preferred news outlet. Some news outlets employ paywalls after a few free articles, others are funded by advertisements - which tend not to like ad blockers, and a fair few are still free to access. Below is a small selection:

Unlike the prose in the article, the reference doesn't necessarily need to be in English. Non-English news sources include, but are not limited to: Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País. Which ironically are Western European examples (hi systemic bias). Any reliable African, Asian or South American non-English source that confirms an event took place can also be used.

Happy hunting. Fuebaey (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Apr-Jun)

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

Other resources

For those who don't take their daily dose of news from an encyclopedia, breaking news stories can also be found via news aggregators (e.g. Google News, Yahoo! News) or your preferred news outlet. Some news outlets employ paywalls after a few free articles, others are funded by advertisements - which tend not to like ad blockers, and a fair few are still free to access. Below is a small selection:

Unlike the prose in the article, the reference doesn't necessarily need to be in English. Non-English news sources include, but are not limited to: Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País. Which ironically are Western European examples (hi systemic bias). Any reliable African, Asian or South American non-English source that confirms an event took place can also be used.

Happy hunting. Fuebaey (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not getting an ITN recognition

Does anyone else feel rather sad and lonely when they don't get an ITN recognition on their talkpage after a successful RD nomination please?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you nominate things because you want to be recognized? Banedon (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, but then I frequently congratulate myself for such awesome work. You can also press the "give credit" button yourself if it means so much. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Stephen just did it but I wonder if we should create a new rule to make sure it's done each and every time?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's hard enough getting sufficient admin attention to assess and post/remove articles, let alone faff around the side fluffing egos. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can, if you like, give yourself the award. No one will stop you or raise any objections. --Jayron32 12:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me if it isn't done and you want someone else to give you the recognition. It might take a little bit but I'll get around to it. But if you have them collected somewhere, no reason why you can't give it to yourself. Best, SpencerT♦C 19:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged! Jusdafax (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Disaster articles at ITN

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.


This applies to any article, but in particular, disaster articles sparked this suggestion. The 2018 Valencia, Venezuela fire for example, has one link from mainspace. It's an irrelevant, barely above stub disaster story that fails to satisfy WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YT. On one hand, who cares? It's not like ITN is overflowing with noms. On the other hand, it's become a sad disaster ticker posting these low grade WP:Orphan articles. So, I propose adding a guideline (not a hard rule) to ITN that:

  • Articles should not be an orphan

We'll still let commentators decide if the nom satisfied that criteria (so adding it mindlessly to an "events" section in the Valencia, Venezuela article would not circumvent).

I don't feel that strongly about it. #twocents.

-- (I was CosmicAdventure) LaserLegs (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think maybe we should have a discussion about setting some very minimal standards for accident/disaster noms. As much as I dislike WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, that has long been an unwritten and undefined bar that many of us consider when looking at noms. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the orphan aspect is that at their onset, most will only have one target article that is a fully reasonable link, which is the appropriate list of that type of that event for that year, and perhaps by geographic region ala List of earthquakes in 2018 or List of school shootings in the United States. Any other incoming links likely are only coming over time , well beyond the scope of ITN. (For example, should a mass disaster happen in a city, should that be linked from the city article? Typically not.) Orphaning is a bad measure for breaking news items. --Masem (t) 17:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Articles which are orphans from their onset by their nature stink of WP:RECENTISM. I'm talking about a guideline, not a hard rule. If something is clearly notable/getting press then common sense prevails. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still will disagree that we should consider how much an orphan an article is for ITN. Virtue of ITN, not many other topics will necessarily relate to the ITN topic in the 7 days we have to process it. Over time they might. But even then.. for example, any sports result, you'll have a list of annual results from that, links probably from the teams/people involved, and that's really it. It's not going to get much more. Orphan evaluation is not really good for ITN. --Masem (t) 17:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per CREEP. I suggest leaning on "qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another." If you're on the fence on notability, consider the quality or vice versa. I have found overwhelmingly that if I'm meh on one, I'm meh on the other and that's an oppose. Though the nom process can be a little sticky, I really don't think ITNC has a problem with what we choose to post. GCG (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per CREEP as well. Discussion already can or does accomplish what this proposal sets out to do, as GCG suggests. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per CREEP and the idea that any article of sufficient quality and sufficient coverage by reliable sources should be eligible for discussion. I am generally opposed to any guideline that would discourage us from posting otherwise quality articles merely because it fits in some broad category. --Jayron32 12:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Even if appropiate, an article being orphan is only an issue of interest to the wikipedia comunity, not to the random casual reader. The quality of the article should be focused in it as a standalone piece, not as part of a grander set of articles. Cambalachero (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

[Closed] Objectivity: Opportunity for Change not Worthy, but Golf is?

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.


The one incident that can cut through partisanship. It can get everyone together to push for news fact-checking regulation and improvement in mental healthcare + suicide. The one time readers' thought process can be more objective/neutral because it doesn't trigger either partisan agenda (neither muslim or white male), we call it "just a blip. nothing is going to change." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/April_2018#[Closed]_YouTube_headquarters_shooting. But a random guy wins a game of GOLF and it gets on the news because... this golf sportsman is going to change something more impactful than suicide counselling and healthcare? 111.69.39.11 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The community has determined that certain sports events (and other events) are presumed notable enough to post without debating the merits. This is the recurring events list. The Masters, an important golf tournament, is on this list, and the article was improved sufficiently for posting. Sudden events like a shooting are discussed on the merits first. The community determined that the circumstances of this shooting did not merit posting. If you disagree with what the community decides, I invite you to participate at WP:ITNC, where these discussions take place. I would add that Wikipedia and ITN are not for promoting any cause or issue such as mental health or fact checking regulations. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
331dot is being very kind here. ITN has its own nomination process, and as this is an encyclopedia, we don't just promote things because people request it. The "YouTube" shooting is utterly inconsequential and probably won't even make it into paper encyclopedias in any form more than a bullet point. Funnily enough, it wasn't even a "random guy" who won the Masters, but it was a "random individual" who shot at a few people and then killed themselves, something which happens in the US approximately every day. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not every day TRM, about as frequently as a van careens into a crowd somewhere in Europe. We post an endless parade of disaster stories at ITN, the "notability" of which is determined almost entirely by an arbitrary WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a mass shooting approximately every day in the United States. That's a fact. The sooner you get over that, the better. This YouTube shooting was utterly without any kind of consequence. As you know. Vehicle terrorism in Europe occurs every few months. Gun slaughter in the US occurs every day, the slaughter of kids in the US occurs every few months. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"a "random individual" who shot at a few people and then killed themselves, something which happens in the US approximately every day." <-- Is a false statement. If you wish to amend it, then you certainly can, but as written, it is false. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not false at all. Mass shootings, murder-suicide and suicide, all through firearms, occur daily. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There were 344 mass shootings in the USA in 2017 (actually down from 383 in 2016). Meanwhile, there were 8 terrorist vehicle attacks in Europe (2 of which were revenge attacks on Muslims) with a total victim count of 32. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
344 mass shootings in a year? That's about ...... one every day then! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi 111.69.39.11. I don't want to pile on here but I would suggest you read WP:RGW. Beyond which you might find some advantages to creating a WP:ACCOUNT. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly believe that one isolated shooting in the United States is somehow going to change the culture on healthcare and suicide counseling, after all of the other major shootings - Aurora, Sandy Hook, San Bernandino, Parkland, Orlando - all of which accomplished absolutely no long-term change whatsoever? And do you somehow believe that ITN is going to be the harbinger of that change, considering that we posted all of those stories in spite of the extraordinary occurrence of gun crime in the United States? Because if so, I submit to you that that belief is either extremely idealistic or delusional.--WaltCip (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this point even if someone went into a hospital and shot 20 newborn babies you would still have the pro-gun lobby screaming about their rights being violated. Although given recent legislation, perhaps if someone had a mass-shooting at a dog show and executed 20 pedigree handbags, that might have an effect. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're in danger of veering off into a gun control debate here, which is not what this talk page is for. I really don't think there's much more that needs to added to 331dot's reply to the OP.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We aren't here to right great wrongs, and posting this item would not even be effective in doing so. Moreover, given that Patrick Reed has an article, and is ergo not a "random guy" - he is of encyclopedic merit, and the Masters is one of the most important golf events in the year. The YouTube item constitutes another mass shooting, and as Black Kite has shown, they are not particularly rare, regardless of the perpetrator. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RD section and posthumously created articles

Tyler Hilinski was a posthumously created article rejected by ITN/C for being posthumously created. It has to this date not been nominated for deletion. Zeke Upshaw was also created posthumously, nominated, and not posted, but it was taken to AfD during the nomination (and speedily kept). Yang Gui was posthumously created, nominated, and posted. Now Judy Kennedy was posthumously created, nominated, and looking like consensus will not support posting. There may be other recent examples I'm forgetting.

The discrepancy in reactions from editors on these noms shows that we need some clear standards here for how to handle posthumously created articles nominated for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply links to each of the discussions to enable us to assess the situation more accurately. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Tyler Hilinski, Zeke Upshaw (the # messes stuff up so you'll have to CTRL+F. The Yang Gui and Judy Kennedy noms haven't been archived yet. The search helped me find Jill Messick, a posthumously created article that was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The hash (pound) doesn't normally screw things up, just don't put a space after it and the name of the section heading. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There’s also David Buckel, which I nominated about the same time as Judy Kennedy and which was posted with no opposition. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we're trying to deal with a non-problem here. Just because a couple of nominations were rejected for one reason or another, including concerns over notability, it doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Clearly admins could have assessed that the rejection of completely sound RDs on the grounds that they were posthumously created articles to be incorrect and posted otherwise, but they didn't, and so there's literally no problem here. Naturally, and as ever, if we don't like posting the way post RDs (which I think has been a 100% wholesale success, no need to thank me etc etc) then we can launch an RFC to debate it. These edge cases are worthy of discussion on their merit. Nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]