Wikipedia talk:In the news

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items
)

Analysis of ITNC nominations

I have created a page in my namespace in which I analyze ITNC nominations, excluding RD and ITNR nominations, in relation to the country in which the event happened (if applicable). It is still very much a work in progress, but I would welcome feedback, constructive criticism, and contributions from other users, especially since most of the people who watch this page have been much more active in ITNC recently than I have. The page is User:IntoThinAir/ITNC analysis. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small detail, you mark Mohammad Shtayyeh's resignation as having happened in the Gaza Strip, which wasn't the case (he's the Prime Minister of the State of Palestine, which hasn't effectively controlled the Gaza Strip in decades), although he resigned in protest due to the situation there. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 04:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "Iran denied any involvement" in the Tower 22 drone attack. A lot of times, people read explicit denials as implicit admissions. But some people still don't. Far be it from me to tell you who to be. Just something to think about. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's pretty much OR territory you're going into, even if just framing it as something to think about. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 05:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read it in the article's lead, per Al Jazeera. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Iran denies involvement is sourced. Speculating about how it might be an implicit admission isn't, and that's the original research part. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to what I'm personally "pushing", it just seems a bit weird to have a column for where an event takes place sometimes include other places. Even involved or allegedly involved places. The 2024 Iranian missile strikes in Pakistan doesn't have Iran in that column, for instance. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is more diverse than I expected, this is nice ^_^ ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, IntoThinAir! I was wondering where you were at. It was almost as if you had vanished into th...well, never mind.
You had inspired a future essay that I did end up writing -- indeed,
WP:HOWITNWORKS is heavily built upon the contents of one of your old essays. Considering that it was originally built upon your text, you can choose to edit it as you see fit. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 13:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I have made a few changes in response to comments above, like changing the country for Shtayyeh's resignation from Gaza Strip to Palestine, and adding Iran to the Pakistan strike entry. I also think I now have completed the intended list of subjective ITNC nominations from January 1 to the present, inclusive. The list has 92 items, of which only 24 (26.1%) were posted. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear what the point of this is. The range of countries covered already seems quite comprehensive. For example, ITN currently has blurbs for Canada, Haiti, Pakistan and Tuvalu. What seems more of an issue is that all four blurbs are about political leaders. The type of topic seems limited and that's because most nominations are opposed unless they are ITN/R and that's quite limited too. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's very few things that are expected to take place ahead of time outside of elections and sporting events, which is why ITNR weighs that way. And no, no one seems opposing because things aren't in ITNR; we have ongoing covering events in Ukraine and Gaza and the Middle East in general, and beyond that, there's very little beyond current election cycles that are getting coverage. So the box currently represents a fair share of encyclopedically-worthy news stories that have happened over the last couple weeks. Masem (t) 13:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear what the point of this is. The range of countries covered already seems quite comprehensive. IntoThinAir has postulated nothing whatsoever regarding the representation - or lack thereof - of countries on ITN/C. He's simply looking for patterns and providing data for others to review, analyze, or otherwise take interest in. If there's an issue about supersaturation of topics (as you said, political leaders) on ITN, that's something you should be making a separate thread about. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 13:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The OP stated that they are going to "analyze ITNC nominations ... in relation to the country in which the event happened" and I'm not understanding the focus on countries rather than other dimensions of analysis. And a significant pattern is already clear -- that about 75% of nominations are not successful. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that would be great to see is more scientific advancements being featured on ITN. An interesting thing would be to have a column in the ITN analysis indicating the topic (politics, natural disaster, sports, science, war, etc.) to more easily compare them.
From what I see, the only science-related blurbs proposed this year were
Obelisk (life form) (biology, not posted), Upano Valley sites (archaeology, posted) and Vulcan Centaur (astronautics, posted), with only the two non-astronautics blurbs being actual discoveries. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I have added some categories for some of the entries, though I remain unsure about the accuracy of many of the categories, since some of these events seem to be more difficult to categorize than others. I would appreciate input and/or contributions from other editors to improve the categorization of entries. Also, I originally decided to enter the country where the entry happened because I wanted to shed light on which countries most often have events posted to ITN. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I was also interested in which categories occurred the most. I don't know how fine-grained some of the categories should be (e.g. there is "marine disaster" and "natural disaster" but also just "disaster"). Some categories have a lot of overlap and could be merged (
2024 Haldwani violence in "political unrest"). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Academy Award images

I understand rotating images for variety. However, after starting with Christopher Nolan (best director), there's been

Those are perhaps a bit less popular than other Oppenheimer options like Cillian Murphy (best actor), Robert Downey Jr. (best supporting actor), or just keeping Nolan pinned.

So the questions I have are:

  1. Is there a preferred order of award categories to rotate?
  2. Is there a cutoff where we keep older images up instead of using new images related to less prominent awards?—Bagumba (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. No, 2. No. Stephen 04:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I was really into celebrity watching, I'd want to see the Best Supporting Actor before I saw the Best Actor. Other way around, it would seem anticlimactic. So far, I've kind of enjoyed how the first three appeared and maybe wouldn't mind seeing another coproducer before the ultimate Downey-Murphy showdown. Anyway, the weather/other news is heating up and there are many elderly prime ministers, so it's entirely possible we never even get to all seven. I could "live with that", but to those who might feel cheated, I'd suggest asking for Cillian Murphy ASAP. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Luís Montenegro is now the top image, so we didn't get all seven finally. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the blurb's up, the show could go on. In theory. Must it? Should it? Very good questions. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nolan, Murphy and Downey Jr. had all been on the main page three weeks prior when they won the BAFTAs. There were complaints then that we weren’t featuring any women in the cycle. There are complaints if the same image is there for an extended period. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t I guess. The choice for a producer and a musician this time were entirely mine. Stephen 00:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we also have a damn fine excuse for overlooking Jennifer Lame. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jennifer Lame has no image, so there is no image to feature. Natg 19 (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it was 3 weeks earlier and wasnt a
WP:LUGO, I'd argue to keep the images about the prominent awards, even if it means less image variety. All things equal between an image of an actress and an actor, post the actress first, but a co-producer of best picture was a stretch for gender equality when best director (or others from Oppenheimer) was the bigger news. Anyways, appreciate the effort to balance all concerns. —Bagumba (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
For the record Nolan’s picture was used first. I appreciate your view. Stephen 05:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Sports

Dear fellow editors,

I have recently observed the nomination of the Women's Premier League (cricket) article for consideration, and during the ensuing discussion, I was struck by a disconcerting observation. One user pointed out that there is only one women's cricket entry on the WP:ITNR list. Upon further examination of the sports items listed, I found approximately 60 entries that are exclusively male sports. In contrast, there are only 2-3 entries related to women's sports, including the Women's Football and Cricket World Cups).

While the four Grand Slams do feature alongside male winners, it appears that we have not posted a Grand Slam since the 2020 French Open. Furthermore, there is not a single item on any women’s professional league, no

.

Although some women's sports events have been featured in the past, their exclusion from the list makes it easier for detractors to dismiss their importance under the pretext of not being WP:ITNR. This situation highlights a issue of gender bias on Wikipedia. I must admit, despite my reservations about the inclusion of numerous sports items on ITN, the stark underrepresentation of women's sports entries shocks me. As this is my first experience participating in a community-wide discussion, I apologize if any errors were made.

Thank You. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about all of these sports/events, but I see a couple of problems with getting women's articles listed. Firstly, these articles often get less attention/editing than their men's counterparts, and so are unlikely to meet
WP:ITNQUALITY. E.g. 2023 ICC Women's T20 World Cup has no match summaries and doesn't have a separate article for the final, which makes it easier to get posted (whereas the last men's equivalent event did: 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup final), and 2022–23 Women's Super League has no season summary whereas even the current men's division 2023–24 Premier League already does. Secondly, some of them get significantly less coverage than the men's events, and thus it can be hard to justify supporting them (this was my point with the Women's Premier League nom, and is a wider non-Wiki news problem of less coverage for many women's events). Some of the women's events do get similar levels of coverage, such as ICC Women's T20 World Cups, but unless we also fix the article quality issues, it'll be hard to get them posted. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Although I acknowledge that certain recent seasons of the following entries may not meet our quality standards, I initiated this discussion with the aim of proposing the addition of some women's professional leagues to the recurring list. I believe that some users may have refrained from nominating these leagues for consideration, assuming they were not eligible for WP:ITNR status. However, it is essential to recognize the significance of including them in order to address this oversight.
Furthermore, expecting women's sporting events to attain the same level of popularity as men's events is inherently unfair, given the existing societal disparities. We must acknowledge the inherent challenges and biases that women's sports face in achieving parity with their male counterparts. PrinceofPunjabTALK 03:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be good to add a few more more women's sports events to ITN/R, and I eagerly await proposals. I have absolutely no clue which specific events might be good missing options. At the very least, it would be nice to list some sports events that could make it onto ITN but have thus far escaped notice. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The
LPGA majors. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Joseph id'd the quality problems, which is on WP editors to fix. But another factor outside our control is the lack of coverage of these events compared to equivalent men's events, particularly when they happen in a separate cycle, such as the case of the WNBA which gets far less coverage than the NBA. It makes it hard to qualify those as ITNR when there is little coverage if then, though we should try to work against that systematic bias when we can to feature more women's sports — Masem (t) 18:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, ITNR doesn't mention coverage. It just mentions importance. And in any case, IAR is always available.
[OMT] 19:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The WNBA gets less coverage than the NBA, but it still gets enough coverage that editors who are interested in the WNBA should be able to write a solid article about the WNBA Finals. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Women's college basketball has been regularly posted, e.g. 2023, but even that is a perennial ITNR debate.—Bagumba (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A recent column from the Los Angeles Times is titled "With USC and UCLA leading the way, women’s tourney slam dunks on the men" —Bagumba (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just going to say I am dismayed by comments that refer to article quality (improve it) and non-sport-specific news coverage (when the media bias is well known) to suggest we should not aim for gender parity. Wikipedia aims to counter bias in coverage of minorities, particularly women, with WiR celebrated - it's something that keeps me on here, I'm sure many of you have noticed. ITN/R is a list of recurring events that are notable enough to be posted, if the articles are sufficient, and while repeated previous postings is what usually constitutes that, I think that gender equality is a simple enough reason to extend ITN/R sports listings so that the women's equivalent of any men's event currently on the list should be added - let the discussions of quality happen at nominations, if they are ever made. If the list is saying that, inherently (i.e. regardless of media coverage etc), the e.g. Champions League is an important recurring event then naturally the Women's Champions League is, too (I know not everything can or should be discussed in such simple equivalent terms, but really: how are we defining ITN/R and how do equivalent tournaments differ within that ITN/R concept - genuine questions). Kingsif (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingsif Thank you for echoing my sentiments. My point exactly! We should definitely consider adding more female sporting events to the ITN/R list. This way, whenever they occur, they can be nominated for inclusion, allowing us to discuss their quality and other relevant aspects. Dismissing their inclusion due to lesser coverage isn't a fair comparison, especially considering that many events already on the Recurring list receive only a fraction of the media attention that others do, yet they're still included. Let's prioritize equity and fairness in our approach. PrinceofPunjabTALK 18:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agree with this — we can start working for gender parity by establishing it on ITN/R already. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 19:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be in favor of some discussion of the inclusion of women's sporting events beyond what we have now, at least in regards to ones that are direct counterparts to the male versions we already have posted. However, I would say don't keep your hopes up on said discussions being successful. There's a decent anti-sports contingent at ITN that would probably not be to favorable to such noms. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment to ITNELECTIONS

The fourth item of

WP:ITNELECTIONS currently reads: Changes in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government... Such wording formally excludes re-elections, where no change took place, but in most cases they are also newsworthy - we have been posting re-elections of executive office holders (mainly presidents) since time immemorial. The list of current heads of state and government
itself, invoked in the fourth item, contains various re-elected persons in that regard (where no change occurred).

Suggested amendment: The results of elections for the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government... (the part after comma would remain unchanged). That would also bring language consistency with the "the results of general elections" item. Countries with traditionally

sham elections could be discussed on case-by-case basis (where instead of "elected" the wording like "announced" could be used). Brandmeistertalk 22:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

That one also covers worse case scenarios too, like deaths of a sitting leader or a coup or a resignation. It should obviously include reelections too but needs some wording adjustment. — Masem (t) 23:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mention elections. We don't now. Maybe it should be "Changes in or reappointment of the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government..." HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this version. Clear and to the point, and it covers everything from presidential systems to Westminster systems to coups and absolute monarchies. Personally I'd also include non-executive heads of state. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in the Putin nom, I don't know when we started being so picky about the wording in this line. As recently as a few months ago it didn't seem like people much cared about whether the office holder in question was the incumbent or not. Yet somehow this became a massive point of contention (I would bet because of
WP:RGW calls for mentioning elections as not free or fair in blurbs). I like HiLo's phrasing as well as yours. It really shouldn't matter how or why the administer of executive power changes. Any election directly impacting the holder of said office, as well as any other changes is what we need to cover. Elections with either outcome, re-appointments, one person replacing the previous executive in the event of the prior's death or removal, etc. The point being that it seems we currently are placing undue weight on specific methods of becoming said executive and not putting enough weight on formal processes that keep said executive in power. I would also consider ITN/R status for situations where constitutional changes are enacted to lengthen a sitting executive's term as well, or instances where said person is on leave (ie the case with El Salvador), but that's getting into the weeds at that point. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I definitely agree with removing this restriction. In my mind, the notability of elections for the executive is not the change in office, but the decision on who holds the executive power (whether or not they are being reappointed). I also agree with others above that we shouldn't restrict the scope only to the results of elections, but also allow for any other changes in the executive. I think HiLo48 had a nice possible change: "Changes in or reappointments of the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government...". Gödel2200 (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In countries such as the UK, Canada and Australia, with the Westminster system, the Prime Minister is technically never elected by the people. The party appointed to govern chooses the Prime Minister, so the occupant of that office can change without an election occuring. And of course countries such as the USA have a Vice-President who automatically takes over without an election if the President dies. Elections aren't the issue here, despite the current excitement over recent events in Russia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, for that eventuality the word "elections" in the proposed wording would also include general elections under Westminster system. Brandmeistertalk 08:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Godel2200 nailed it. Make the wording "The outcomes of decision on who holds the executive power except when that decision was already posted as part of a general election." this fixes it for resignations, deaths in office, etc without having to word in a backdoor for Westminster systems. --24.125.98.89 (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy of elections

As in a recent nomination of Putin's election to ITN there has been a discussion on the blurb to posted. The discussion is about whether the blurb should mention the legitimacy of the election in Russia or not. It is now important to amend WP:ITNELECTIONS to explicitly state that the fairness of an election should be factor in determining whether its results merit inclusion in the ITN section of Wikipedia's main page. This is necessary as for Wikipidea to maintains it commitment to neutrality and accuracy in reporting notable events. I propose the following clause to be added in a new section-" Legitimacy of election "

The impartiality of the electoral process must be evaluated by editors before submitting the blurb for the "In The News" (ITN) section of the main page. This evaluation needs to take into factors like upholding democratic principles, transparency, impartiality of electoral authorities, lack of fraud or coercion, and conformity to globally acknowledged norms for free and fair elections. Editors must justify their judgement with credible, verifiable sources and offer brief explanation. Furthermore, editors proposing the blurbs regarding elections have to include a segment within their additional comment section that specifically addresses the impartiality of the election procedure, backed by citations to reliable sources. Harvici (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I am sympathetic to the ideas behind this motion, the proposed text is burdensome and mostly smacks of instruction creep. I would prefer something much simpler, like "The opinions of accredited international observers about the fairness and legitimacy of elections are relevant, and may be included in the blurb where this would provide useful context." GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be better Harvici (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good idea. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After all recent discussions on elections and the form of their inclusion on ITN/R, it seems like the optimal solution is to discuss them all on a case-by-case basis (maybe simply leave a note on ITN/R that all elections should be discussed that way). It's really tiresome to get over and over again.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose youdon't need to arbitrate on election legitimacy for several reasons: 1 if the election (or appearance thereof) is "in the news" (as is the case with Russia) then it belongs in the box; 2 this is going to turn many more election noms into battlegrounds now that it's in vogue to shriek about "voter suppression" when your side loses; and 3 you're not freeing the Russian people or ending the war in Ukraine by not posting Russias sham election for Christ sakes get over yourself. Even "announced as the winner" is problematic since that's true of every election - someone will in fact be announced as the winner. Link to the election article where you can write paragraph after paragraph of "election fake, Putin bad" --24.125.98.89 (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should tell the thousands of women and children that Putin has murdered to "get over themselves for Christ sakes"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While my heart sympathizes with the feelings you expressed (IRL I have recently studied under, and continue to work with, people whose names are probably on wanted lists somewhere in Moscow), my head is appalled that one of the top 250 editors by count is bringing such pathos into a discussion about NPOV. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we can just forget he's a war criminal. Glad to hear I'm not on your wanted list. Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Hate to break it to you, but The Encyclopedia is not an OSCE election observer. This is necessary as for Wikipidea to maintains it commitment to neutrality and accuracy [
WP:UNDUE weight. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The sources I am finding on Putin's election tend to list election fraud in the headline and/or first line. Should we do the same thing on Wikipedia per
WP:DUE? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Sure, but I don’t believe ITN is the place. I’m already mildly concerned that a local consensus formed to alter the usual wording.
This is, unironically, the thin end of the wedge. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not OSCE observers, but OSCE observers exist, are themselves a reliable source, and have views which are very relevant to the elections we cover. Concealing those views (when including them is thought relevant and proportionate by other RS) is not neutral of us. It provides false legitimacy. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITN, not an article. We aren’t concealing anything. The goal is an almost shortdesc-length summary of a news item so that interested readers (such as in my teenage years when I relied on ITN to feed me anything important in world news) can click on the link and find out more details, including contested legitimacy. Even if it’s appropriate for a lead, it doesn’t automatically belong in ITN.
About “false legitimacy”, well, I personally agree
de lege ferenda
-esque way many editors like to promote concepts of justice over cold hard realities is detrimental to The Encyclopedia. Russia is currently one of the most serious such examples.
Lastly, it’s worth pointing out that the language change had exactly zero precedents known to me regarding leaders of countries reported by RS to have been elected in unfree conditions (see Freedom House: [3]) and arguably distinguishing this case from every other non-democratic presidential republic is non-neutral.
But apparently, some editors have in the past taken the stance that it’s OK to be non-neutral about bad people, despite the vital importance of bad people to the process of establishing neutrality.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Whether an election is free and fair is always a nuanced matter. Sure, reliable sources may form a consensus one way or the other, and the article can be weighted accordingly. For example, the Russian election was deemed not fair, while the last US election was deemed fair, despite the loser claiming otherwise. The US election of 2000 might have been a greyer area, given that vote recounts were stopped by a court that was partisan to the victor. But anyway, the overarching point is that there are degrees of fairness, it's a spectrum, and it simply isn't possible for a one-line ITN blurb to summarise such detail. Not to mention the potential for extra bickering and argument about what exactly to say. The bottom line is that stating that an election occurred and that a certain person won it is never inaccurate, whether it's free and fair or not. And I definitely think we should retain our prior convention of simply stating the election result without further fluff in all circumstances.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By providing context and transparency regarding the electoral process, we can increase the quality of the content showcased in the ITN section Z(
WP:ITNPURPOSE). Some ITN blurbs aren't one line, and by including a section addressing the fairness of the election process in ITN nominations, we can provide readers with additional information that may influence their understanding of the event. We can also only include the fairness of elections, if the election is indeed unfair with citations backed by reliable sources. Harvici (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose in general our blurbs are meant to get at the central point of an event without addition commentary... A dozen or so words is not sufficient space to go into such commentary. That's the job of the article where there is sufficient space to give all the proper context. Further per NPOV, the tone of our nlblurbs should be neutral and impartial, not to consider the event under one light or another. We have done a good job of that when posting blurbs related to the Ukraine or Gaza situation, for example. We should not be using ITN as to take a pro-demicratic side. To add one more, while Due is part of NPOV, that applies to article space, and ITN is not within that. We have to use appropriate subsets of the core content policies given how little space we have. Masem (t) 13:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Defining a cutoff for what qualifies as "not free or fair" is something so controversial that it's unlikely we can ever find a standard, and short of deciding on the fairness of every election, which would be tedious, there would be serious bias concerns for singling out only certain elections. Again, in the case of Russia it is heavily clear throughout the article that these claims exist. I don't believe it's ITN's job to say this as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable sources would define which elections aren’t free or fair. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Lots of people are saying that we shouldn't be judging for ourselves on WP whether an election is free or fair. I agree, which is why I didn't propose that. The opinions of independent international election monitors are facts about an election which we can report as part of the headline if there is a preponderance of reliable third-party reporting mentioning them with sufficient prominence. I might personally think those opinions are horseshit - or contrariwise, I might think they should be saying things about places they aren't - but that doesn't matter. This isn't what I think about any individual election; it's about whether we should qualify our bare reports of declared winners or not, and I think we definitely should (and already do, as we did in a different way with the recent Portuguese election). (I also note that an anon who has commented a few times above has been repeatedly dinged for disruptive editing on related issues, so do what you want with that info.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Separate comment I’m pretty sure that this is one of those ideas that Looked Really Good At The Time™ but is actually a Really Bad Idea™.
For example, there are any number of scenarios that could play out in my country (the good ole US of A) before the year is out that would allow any number of differing interpretations of the hypothetical events.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I absolutely think that criticism of US elections, were it to be produced by appropriate reliable sources, would be just as valid as of any other elections. I see that as a positive, not a negative, about these proposals. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying "General elections"

The current wording on general elections in ITNR does not make it clear what a general election is, and only links to the general elections page. But I think we should explicitly define what it is in ITNR, as the General election page has major issues. Besides for large sourcing issues, it seems self-contradictory. For example, the first sentence says "A general election is an electoral process to choose most or all members of an elected body, typically a legislature." yet it says that: "In U.S. politics, general elections are elections held at any level (e.g. city, county, congressional district, state) that typically involve competition between at least two parties.", and says that the US presidential election is a general election. I don't see any reason not to clarify what we mean by a general election, so I propose that we change to:

Gödel2200 (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you and that was the main reason for opening up this discussion, which was recently archived. Furthermore, general election is in very bad shape to be linked in a guideline/policy. I, however, am afraid that this may end up as another futile attempt to change things as we get involved in endless discussions and eventually do nothing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's define this as follows, disregarding things such as supposed election being free and fair:
  1. For elections of a head of state, provided it is the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government:
    1. Direct election of a head of state
    2. Preliminary direct election of an election of a head of state, where the preliminary direct election elects an electoral college that elects the head of state
    3. Election of a head of state by the national legislature
  2. For elections of a national legislature
    1. Election of a supermajority of of seats of the sole, or lower house of legislature.
    2. Election of at least a "class of seats" of the upper house of parliament, on the same day as an election of a supermajority of of seats of the lower house of the legislature.
So for this:
  • 1.1 encompasses probably all direct presidential elections in presidential systems where the president is both head of state and government
  • 1.2 encompasses U.S. presidential elections.
  • 1.3 encompasses South African presidential elections.
  • 2.1 encompasses almost all legislative elections
  • 2.2 encompasses almost all upper house elections elected on the same day as lower house elections (such as midterm elections).
This excludes things such as direct presidential elections in
parliamentary republics, but seriously people here will genuflect whenever an Irish blurb is nominated, so Irish presidential elections are de facto ITNR. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
There are two things I think should come of this discussion. First, we would (hopefully) come to some agreement as to what definition of general election we think should be in ITNR. Regardless of what the general election article says (and it's really not clear exactly what it is saying), it would be good to find consensus as to what we think should be in ITNR. The second reason is simply for clarification purposes. Even if the general election article was top notch (which it is far from), it would still be, in my opinion, favorable to give a definition of general elections in the ITNR page itself. Fixing the general election article won't fix the problem of finding consensus for what general elections are ITNR. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we can probably fix up the general election article as well. The problem is ITNR references the term "general election", but there's no satisfactory definition for it, or that there are too many definitions. For example, in the U.S., there are primary elections that come before the general election. There are even runoffs in some cases (are those general elections too)?
"General elections" in parliamentary systems are what are understood as "legislative elections" in presidential systems. However, presidential elections are seen as at the very least, as important as legislative elections, so are presidential elections part of general elections? What if they happen on separate days? Howard the Duck (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We stumbled into this issue in 2020, actually. We knew that Biden won before we knew that the Senate would be blue, and we blurbed that Biden had won the election and the House would be controlled by the Democratic Party. Later, we blurbed that the Senate went blue and then that was pulled. --RockstoneSend me a message! 00:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was what I remembered where someone argued US Senate elections are not ITNR elections, and one could even argue the same for House elections. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Modest Genius put the UK-centric definition of this at the Putin election blurb: "this was NOT a 'general election'. Those are, by definition, elections in which every member of an assembly/parliament/council/whatever is being decided, as opposed to a single member or some fraction of them. This was a presidential election, for a single person". Some people would not consider presidential elections or even US Senate elections as "general elections". Howard the Duck (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's UK-centric: even Merriam Webster and American Heritage give equivalent definitions. Modest Genius talk 12:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term "general election" is routinely used in the US to mean a non-primary election "she defeated incumbent Jane Bloggs in a surprise upset in the primary, but was crushed by Democrat Bob Smith in the general election" so I think the guideline needs to define its terms better.
I imagine that other countries (especially non-Westminster ones) have their own terminology. And given that, for example, Nigeria, a
MOS:TIES
is the only proper place for such things.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ITN note

Hi. From time to time I remove the template

(CC) Tbhotch 00:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

It would almost be better to implement this as a subst template that is added to the bottom of the article's talk page. Such that the page editors are notified, but also that the notification then folds into the talk page archives naturally. Masem (t) 01:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 —Bagumba (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not added by a bot. In the 5 examples I looked at it's being added by User:PFHLai fairly consistently, so they may have a view on this. Stephen 01:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought User:RscprinterBot removes the ITN notes (example). Do we want this bot to do the same to unsuccessful noms, too? --PFHLai (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I occasionally add this to talk pages. As the nomination discussions can be lengthy, it would be nice if there's a historical form which links to the archived ITN discussion, like other entries which go into the {{article history}}. That history does currently support ITN entries but only those which were posted. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defining "newsworthy"

Having seen the Princess of Wales sharing a video talking about her cancer treatment being nominated, I think we have reached the point where the newsworthy principle of ITN needs to be more firmly codified. Some note that items have to be literally in the news as well as something that a journalist of repute would write a full article on. (Or, you know, it's on ITN/R.) Would this be added to the main ITN/C page if generally agreed it is something that needs to be added Kingsif (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone saying it isn't newsworthy. But this does kinda fall under the "not a newspaper" ITN tenant. The impact, with no disrespect to Kate, isn't exactly colossal. It's slightly more important celebrity news. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole mess around the Princess of Wales story - which has only culminated from an encyclopedic view is that she was absent from the public for a few months as to determine and be diagnosed with cancer - is trivial, cancer happens to anyone, and it is not like the gov't of the UK is going to be affected by this. If, hypothetical, a national leader announced they had terminal cancer and was expected to die in a few months, that might be something, but this specific story is absolutely not encyclopedically newsworthy.
This is where we as an encyclopedia fight systematic bias from the press that have constant detail on a story that ends up being a trivial matter at the end of the day. ITN has to reflect the encyclopedic purpose, not what is considered important by the press. Masem (t) 01:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "ITN has to reflect the encyclopedic purpose ..."
[OMT] 02:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
And that article is highly problematic (with multiple discussions over it over the past week) at the fact that that was mostly BLPGOSSIP and overly detailed media speculation on where she was. The fact she was absent, and created that stir, is definitely worth a paragraph or three in her bio article, but that article is exactly the type as an encyclopedia with a strict BLP policy don't want, even if the media is going on to it for great lengths. Its only of those things that in ten years or so will likely be a footnote to her biography, and that's where we have to recognize that news of the day is not equivalent to encyclopedic topics of the future. Masem (t) 02:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These types of articles are often a crapshoot on whether they are merged or remain due to significant coverage. And
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE might not be possible to gauge during an actual event. —Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Masem, I very specifically said that I was speaking only to a generalized case because that article does indeed have issues. You don't need to make that case to me. Let's say we have an future large soft news story with an unproblematic article about that specific topic. How is that not encyclopedic by your, but more importantly Wikipedia's, our own definition?
Bagumba, it's not our job to assess whether an article will meet PERSISTENCE at some undetermined point in the future. ITNCRIT has zero words on that. The guideline itself says that "editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not." We can only operate on what we know in the moment... which is what PERSISTENCE says and works with the deliberately flexible criteria laid out at
[OMT] 06:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
My response was to Masem's comment ...is definitely worth a paragraph or three in her bio article, but that article is exactly the type as an encyclopedia with a strict BLP policy don't want... Yes, it's not a factor for ITN, unless someone nominates a candidate for
WP:AFD.—Bagumba (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
For reference,
WP:ITNSIGNIF is currently quite subjective:

It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting. Generally, proof that an event is being covered, in an in-depth manner, by news sources is required.

Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
We need to pull that out a lot more often, !votes that "it is in the news" for something that can only be described as light entertainment of news are getting common. Kingsif (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until there's consensus to tighten it, almost anything is fair game, despite some who might claim otherwise. —Bagumba (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, I don't think that any individual person's medical conditions are a suitable topic for ITN. I know that 'wider impact' is fairly subjective, but my understanding is that the stories we run should be the ones that have a wider impact on the world, not on the churn of the 24-hour news cycle. It's easy for certain areas of the news media to turn practically anything into a continuing story by running it often enough. This is an encyclopedia, though, not the front page of The Sun, and we need to be selective. This kind of story is necessarily ephemeral, and I cannot see any encyclopedic merit in running it. (And while we're at it, I also don't think we should run the progress of Donald Trump's various trials unless - at the very least - he is convicted of a criminal offence which could attract a prison sentence; I don't think we should post the daily minutiae of the UK and US election cycles; and I don't think we should post new product releases unless, as a minimum, the product in question is the first public release of a genuinely novel technology. Also no film premieres, concert tours, celebrity weddings, or arrests. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, I don't think that any individual person's medical conditions are a suitable topic for ITN. Unless the announcement of such comes with something very significant (e.g. an incumbent world leader stepping down to get treatment) then I agree. I don't think we even posted Boris Johnson getting COVID and being put on a ventilator at a time when there was still a not insignificant chance of death in the short term - an event that had much greater significance for everyone other than Kate's close family. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The OP seems to suggest that the Princess of Wales story is not substantial - "something that a journalist of repute would write a full article on". The Times is a reputable newspaper and, yesterday, the story covered the entire front page and the following six pages. It doesn't get much more substantial and in-depth than that. Her article was also the top read on Wikipedia for the day, with triple the readership of the Moscow shooting, and so it was the story that most interested our readers.
The main problem with the story is that it's an ongoing one and we don't have all the details and outcome yet. Speculation about these is what's driving a lot of the coverage and interest but so it goes. Most of our ongoing entries are like that.
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are certain topics that get far too much magnification in the media, this includes anything involving or adjacent to the Royal Family. We are able to recognize that as an encyclopedia and avoid the excessive detail on such topics as necessary. Also, again, we do not care about page views at ITN, that has nothing to do with ITNs purpose. Masem (t) 13:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that it is generally not appropriate to feature someone's illness/public absence prominently on our front page for BLP-related concerns. Personally I am pretty weirded out by how many publications are putting this type of personal news on their front-pages. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you thought that was weirdly personal, you'll probably want to skip today's update on the Former Royal Baby. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).