Open main menu


July 27 RD: Keith LincolnEdit

RD nomination of Keith Lincoln can use some comments (none currently) before it becomes stale. Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Now tagged "Ready", if an admin can consider posting or leaving feedback. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

August 3 RD: Joe LongthorneEdit

I've been having a bit of a debate with DBigXray on their talk page, at User_talk:DBigXray#Commenting_out_unsourced_content, about commenting out sections of a BLP in order to allow it to pass the sourcing requirements for ITN. Before things get too antagonistic there, I'm therefore bringing the conversation here. It's true that a lot of it was unsourced, but many of the sections removed didn't seem to satisfy the "likely to be challenged" clause of WP:BLP, and IMHO should therefore have been tagged with {{cn}} rather than removed. As things stand, the article now has so little detail on his career that I've marked it as incomplete. Interested to hear other views, anyway. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Amakuru for starting it here. I was planning to start this after some discussion on my talk page. Here is some more background to this and my point of view. We are all aware the ITN RD are extremely time sensetive eventhough improving a Wikipedia article has no time limit. The crowd at WP:ITN is very unforgiving on unsourced contents. After having several disappointments where despite lot of hardwork over several days in improving the article, the article failed to make it to ITN RD, simply because there were more recent entries already and the mainpage ITN RD has limited real estate. So when I come across an article that has the potential of reaching ITN RD, I remove highly controversial claims as unsourced, I comment out the less controversial (which still need sources to satisfy WP:BLP anyway). I would also note that "controversial" is also a subjective matter. After this I usually expand the article by adding new content and restore some of the commented out parts after adding the missing cititations. This strategy generally satisfies the folks at WP:ITNC and the article doesn't miss out its chance to goto main page due to time constraints. Other option is to move the content to the talk page, but I prefer the option of commenting, as it shows the content to reuse at a later point of time. --DBigXray 17:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm seeing a few sections removed from pre-Aug 3 state to now. One is clearly appropriate to remove, the Bankruptcy section, as that is definitely contentious material. The illness section was merged to personal life, good. That leaves the live performances, and while the sourcing is weak, that doen't seem like contentious material, and would be material we'd reasonable expect to see in the article. So I'm not sure about that removal to get this for RD. --Masem (t) 18:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
For seven hours today this article omitted Joe Longthorne's entire adult career, telling anyone hoping to read a topical, potted biography that he was a 14-year-old child actor who worked on local TV for two years, and later got ill and died. (I'm guessing the "three platinum album" line in the lead only survived because DBigXray missed it when blanking the same fact from the article body.) If we're gutting articles this misleadingly to hurry them onto an in-the-news page so that more people can read them, that doesn't sound like a net positive. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Same was done by editor at Cliff Branch. Information that remains in the inbox was commented out in prose. These should be verifiable, and are against the spirit of RD to remove information just because it's not easily sourced by recent obituaries.—Bagumba (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Bagumba if an editor raises concerns on unsourced content then the right thing to do is to find the reliable sources and give the issue its logical conclusion instead of arguing to keep the unsourced content. I am sure you are aware and honour the WP:V of wikipedia. --DBigXray 06:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@DBigXray: As others have commented, you are mistaking verifiable with sourced, and there is a legitmate concern that you are being overzealous in commenting out verifiable text merely to expedite an RD.—Bagumba (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
If it is "verifiable text" why on earth will I comment it out ? Please provide diffs of your accusations before making such serious ones. you are an admin and I should not be reminding you that you are expected to provide diffs while making accusations. As I said I comment out unsourced content only when I am unable to find a reliable source that could support it. If you dig into my contribution history you will find that in vast majority of the cases I always add missing citations wherever I was able to find one. --DBigXray 06:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Here is a diff where you blank the article's "Television", "Impressions" and "Albums" sections, parts of which could have been trivially sourced from the obituaries already present in the article. You could have reduced these to single sentences to match the bare minimum gleaned from those sources, and marked the sections as "needs expansion", instead of deleting them and making the article read as if Longthorne never worked on television or released any albums, the two main things he is known for.
It's good that you've gone back and improved this article in the days since, but the most important day for it was Saturday, the day he actually died, when we can now see that the article jumped from 150 hits to 80,000. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
you jumped in the middle of my work and presented a diff. Why don't you also show my final diff from that article. [1], [2] ,[3], [4] I have already clarified my strategy above perhaps you should read it again. If you disagreed with any line that i commented,why didn't you add the source and unhid it? If you felt something was/is lacking in the article,then no one stopped you to be WP:BOLD and fix it with proper “trivial" sourcing. But instead you are here wikilawyering. The amount of time and efforts that you gentlemen have put into this thread, I wish you would have spent in improving Joe's article and Joe Longthorne article would have reached the main page by now. But clearly people have their own priorities.-DBigXray 02:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand I may have irked some of you who did not agree with some of my acts where I had commented out a few of the unsourced content as controversial, which you would have called uncontroversial. I will try to be less agressive in my commenting in future. for now lets drop down our diffrerences and give a final push towards improving Joe Longhthorn so that it can reach main page before it technically becomes stale (due to more recent entries in the promoted ITN page)--DBigXray 06:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I gave you credit for improving the article over the following days, but you asked for a diff where people thought you were being overzealous. I restored the trivially sourcable content when coming back online later in the day, after Amakuru pointed out (which I hadn't noticed, and which you hadn't reacted to) that the biography now omitted Longthorne's entire adult career.
If you don't see an issue with the timing here and are planning to do the same on other biographies, I think further discussion is needed. Commenting out most of a biography as soon the subject dies, quickly nominating it to ITN and then walking away and slowly restoring it with sources over the next couple of days might be super-effective for the ITN process (voting editors aren't perturbed by unsourced content, and you have plenty of time to fix it up at leisure) but it's unhelpful to the tens of thousands of readers who are simply reading Wikipedia in response to the breaking news of a person's death. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
it was not my fault that the article had unsourced and controversial claims despite being a WP:BLP. What if someone had put in  incorrect defamatory information or a factually incorrect but non defamatory content. What if all these tens of thousands of readers would read that. Who will be blamed for that. I found one examplein the article itself. diff Someone wrote ROMANI without any source and no one removed it till today. I am a rational person and I am here to improve the Wikipedia. WP:V and WP:BLP are there for a reason and I respect them. If you are unhappy with some of my commenting out, feel free to add source and remove the comments. That is all I have to say to this discussion. --DBigXray 08:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I will try to be less aggressive in my commenting in future. @DBigXray: As I also noted at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted)_RD:_Cliff_Branch, your last "fix" again removed verifiable text, which I restored with added source. Based on the plea you left on my talk page to support the RD (Today is the last chance to promote this article since it has become stale ...), I continue to be concerned that you are being too aggressive in removing verifiable text to get an RD posted. I do hope you work on being "less aggressive", as you pledged. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Bagumba, I did make a lot of efforts in trying to source this quote. Failing which it was moved to the talk page, as I had concerns that it was WP:OR. I am glad that you were able to find an archive and added it up. I hope you do understand a basic difference that the quote that you are calling "verifiable text" above was unverified and unsourced at the time when I moved it to the talk page. I will also note that you have decided to ignore my concerns about wrong unsourced info that I raised in my comment above.--DBigXray 10:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Nobody wants incorrect text. However, the fact that it was verified means that it was verifiable when you commented out the text that was already tagged. A gentle reminder, you were notifed before that WP:BURDEN says: In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Yet, you still removed already-tagged text that was ultimately verified. Nobody expects perfection when an editor removes text that they think is contentious, but your judgement has already been called into question by Amakuru starting this thread, and Masem and Lord Belbury have also identified text that you removed which they did not agree with. Jayron32 can correct me if I am wrong, but I also believe they were being facetious when they restored Pro Bowl and All-Pro honors you commented out at Cliff Branch and left the note: added prose from the contentious infobox information to the body of the article, and referenced it.[5].—Bagumba (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
No, I really did add the information to the prose, and I really did add inline references for it. I'm not sure why you thought I was kidding about that. See right here. --Jayron32 16:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Apologies if I was unclear. I knew you added it back. What I meant was that it seemed you were being facetious about it being "contentious" to have been removed to begin with.—Bagumba (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I didn't make any judgement on that. Someone (not sure who, didn't pay attention) had indicated that they didn't believe that information, so I provided verification for it. I only assumed they were earnest in their distrust of the information, so I merely provided the verification for them. I hope that makes sense. --Jayron32 16:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
───────────────────────── @Jayron32: Understood. In isolation, no reason not to AGF. Given the comments in this section (slightly TLDR, I know), perhaps you can offer your perspective on this overall topic. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
In general, my opinion is that there's a sliding scale of contentiousness, from "likely to be harmful if wrong" to "easily checkable via external links in the article, or a simple google search" and likewise there should be a sliding scale of responses from "remove right away" to "do nothing". It's not a black-and-white issue for me. I also personally believe in being useful, so if I can fix a problem someone has found in an article which they themselves cannot, I fix it. If I believe someone else can fix it, but I happen to lack the ability to do so myself, I tag it. If it is already tagged, and I can't fix it, I leave it for someone else. If I believe it could never be fixable, or if it is a BLP issue, I remove it. --Jayron32 17:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: Malcolm NashEdit

folks, Please take a look at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#RD:_Malcolm_Nash. Not sure why this nomination is neither moving forward nor getting any new comments or suggestions for improvements. IMHO it is ready to be promoted. Can someone do the needful to post it to main page, before it gets archived. --DBigXray 06:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

ping User:Amakuru who has also contributed there for thoughts. --DBigXray 11:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I've just added a support !vote. As with the discussion above, I think you probably commented out some bits that weren't controversial enough to remove, but doesn't really matter because I've hopefully sourced it all now so good to go. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your helping hand to improve the sourcing issues. User:Spencer used his bit to post it. All's well that ends well. --DBigXray 05:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Global significanceEdit

"Global significance" is a rationale that I'm starting to see come up a lot in support/oppose rationales for ITN. This is despite the fact that the ITN/C template states "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." In the case of the Jeffrey Epstein blurb nomination, this seems to have been strong enough of an argument to have the nom closed as no consensus. Is "global significance" a criteria for posting on ITN? Should we be changing the ITN criteria to reflect this?--WaltCip (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

With Jeffrey Epstein the debate was whether a Recent Death should be upgraded to a blurb, and in this case I think it is reasonable to consider "global significance", as the advice at WP:ITNRD says, In rare cases, the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb. But I don't think anyone is suggesting that regular nominations like an earthquake in China or a bomb attack in Afghanistan need to have "global significance." -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
There is more than just the "transformative leader" for when an RD may be a blurb: a death that is unusual or showing high interest in the news (beyond "this person died" type reporting) is also listed there. And Epstein's death definitely fell into this type of classification. --Masem (t) 17:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, some of the people saying "5,000 people kill themselves in custody every year, Epstein was no different" were probably being deliberately obtuse; the other 4,999 weren't close personal friends with members of the Royal Family. Sceptre (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I usually read "no global significance" as a near perfect synonym for "this story does not personally interest me". Significance is shown, not through our own feelings or assertions of those feelings, but rather like everything else on Wikipedia, by showing our sources. Assertions of significance (or lack thereof) are really only valid, like everything else at Wikipedia, by reference to source texts (or lack thereof). Someone is free to assert a lack of significance by showing, for example, that some proposed news item is only being covered by celebrity gossip sites, and is not being covered by serious, legitimate news. But just stating "this has no global significance" without any supporting rationale or evidence to back up such a statement is essentially worthless from helping reach a decision on whether or not to post. --Jayron32 16:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I read "global significance" to show that there is coverage more than just in the country where it happened. If it is a US story, I'd want to see BBC, The Guardian, or CBC also covering it. If its a EU/UK story, I'd be looking for NYTimes or CNN coverage, and so forth. It definitely does not mean "this event will have global impacts", as that would immediately preclude most of the disaster articles we feature - however, something that does have a global impact should be seen as a more fitting candidate. --Masem (t) 17:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The criteria section of the WP:ITN page seems to contradict even that particular argument - "The lack of coverage in a specific source is usually not sufficient to block an item from posting, nor is the inclusion of a topic in a particular source a guarantee of inclusion. Consider that many online news sources serve content based on geolocation, so not every person will see the same collection of front-page stories as others, making assessment of "front page significance" highly subjective". In other words, a US story being in the BBC or The Guardian may not necessarily indicate "global significance" if the website cookies are specifically configured to feed back US-centric content.--WaltCip (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it has to be the BBC or Guardian that covers a US story, just that they are going to be the more likely sources that will cover a US story if it has global significant - it could come from the Independent, Times of India, any number of sources, but 99% of the time, BBC/Guardian will be at least one source. This is more often a better measure when you have stories outside the NA/EU/AUS/NZ and SE Asia venues (South America, Africa, Middle East, Eurasia regions) where some might argue importance of local stories but that don't get the coverage in other sources. --Masem (t) 13:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, it seems that WaltCip has missed the meaning of a short but important word or phrase in the guidance. It says, and I quote, "a specific source". I'm not sure whether he is confused by the word "a" or the word "specific" or the combination of the two into the phrase "a specific", but what that clearly means is that focusing on a (meaning one) single (meaning to the exclusion of multiple other possible examples) source is not really useful, and instead we should look at the preponderance of proper news sources and not merely considering a single source to be what is required. --Jayron32 15:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Claims of a lack of significance are easily cancelled out by providing links to sources that demonstrate significance. --Jayron32 12:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of global significance: What? – no blurb on the astonishing split between Miley Cyrus and Liam Hemsworth? Shocking, considering that Miley gets 6,700 words on Wiki. – Sca (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
That is because it is only being covered by celebrity journalism, and not in the more legitimate news sources. Yes, the Beeb may cover it, but not in it's world or national or similar sections. The reason why sources matter is that where a story appears can be used as evidence for its newsworthiness. --Jayron32 15:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Lighten up, old boy. My comment was intended as satire on Ms. Cyrus's majorly overblown celeb' article, of which alas there are many lurking on Wikipedia. – Sca (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

headers on itnc?Edit

Is it just me or should the date headers be H3 style rather than H2? I believe the bot that runs daily is adding them as H2, so just changing them won't help. --Masem (t) 13:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

But why should they be H3?. The current style gives collapsibility to mobile users and has worked fine for as long as I can recall. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. Mobile auto-collapses H3 and lower, but not H2, and that way each date can be seen. It just was odd that Suggestions is at H2, then dates at H2 and the actual candidates at H4, as we're skipping the level. --Masem (t) 15:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "In the news".