Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 90

Archive 85

←

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

→

Archive 95

Disambiguation of recent deaths on a case-by-case basis

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I think we have a consensus in principle on disambiguating deaths to avoid confusion, but with ITN's very existence being discussed further below, the implementation of this will probably have to wait until a later date. --WaltCip-(talk) 13:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

---

I propose henceforth that, in the event of a recent death where the name of the decedent is shared by that of another living person:

• If there is the possibility for confusion as a result of the living person being immediately recognizable to the reader, or
• If the living person comes up on an initial Wikipedia search where the link to the decedent is only available through a disambiguator at the top of the article,

Then under these circumstances, it is desirable and recommended to include a parenthetical indicator of the decedent, so as to properly identify to the reader who the decedent is.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Suggested revised wording per Jayron32: Any recent death of a person whose article title has a disambiguator should not be pipelinked per WP:EGG.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Even if the others are dead?—Bagumba (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

• Support as nominator.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Current way of doing it violates WP:SURPRISE and WP:EASTEREGG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support in principle. I think the wording could be simplified; if we just said that we never pipelink out a parenthetical disambiguator, I'd be okay with that. --Jayron32 14:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support but I think it is fine to pipelink out a parenthetical disambiguator if everyone else with the same name has been dead for a few years. —Kusma (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. We've got to do something here that involves simple, common sense help to avoid confusion. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support the way it is now is the kind of clickbait that should be on WP:DYK on April Fools Day, not breaking recent deaths. It reminds me of a newspaper that stated that Pope wanted to ban a video game [1] before in smaller text saying that Pope was a politician's surname. Harry Kane (hurdler) has just turned 89 and in all due respect will likely be here before Harry Kane, one of the most famous living people in Britain. Would admins really pull off the stunt of announcing on the front page of this website that "Harry Kane", nothing more or less, has died? Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support in principle. I like how that section is organised on the German Wikipedia’s main page, but that would require more room and probably slight rearrangement so that “Ongoing” is moved to the top of the box.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Needless confusion on the front page is not a good look for what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. DuncanHill (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support All articles are now getting short descriptions and it's easy to display these by using {{annotated link}}. Providing a brief standard description of such subjects is exactly what these are for. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  There would need to be safeguards for backdoor vandalism to the MP.—Bagumba (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Agree on this one with Bagumba. I have seen short descriptions vary quite a lot, and are not consistent either. Would recommend holding-off on using annotated link. Ktin (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support We should not be tricking people by not having parenthetical disambiguators when they are not the PRIMARY TOPIC. Doing so is very Easter EGGy which is against our guidelines (MOS:EGG, MOS:LINK) and doing so is WP:ASTONISHing. Some recent examples where this was brought up include [2] Sam Smith (basketball, born 1944) being displayed as just Sam Smith causing confusion for the PRIMARY TOPIC alive singer Sam Smith. Also [3] where Amanda Holden (writer) was simply displayed as Amanda Holden causing confusion for the PRIMARY TOPIC alive celebrity Amanda Holden. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose I honestly dont think it's a major issue. Readers figure it out and know names are not always unique. A less prominent Bobby Brown was posted in 2021 with no qualifier, and there was no complaints. As prominent as Wikipedia is, there should surely be some criticism in reliable sources if this was a thing.—Bagumba (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Well, in this clickbait news environment, that isn't really the thing that grabs RS-reader attention so much as, say, Larry Sanger saying Wikipedia is publishing known falsehoods. But perhaps I am more cynical about that sort of thing. In any case, my position should always be that we adhere to the principle of least astonishment even if there is not necessarily a measurable outcome from it. WaltCip-(talk) 15:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think it's major issue either, and I struggle to see any BLP violations. No-one has the exclusive right to a name. (And does anyone really think if THE Sam Smith had died at the age of 30, that it would just be in the RD line and not be a blurb?)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  We routinely put very famous people in the RD and blurb regionally unknown persons. Readers who don't contribute at ITNC wouldn't clock the difference. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose we'll be looking for community consensus to agree on what the disambiguation is and this will result in further debate and delays to posting. Let admins "do their jobs". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just making sure I understand this correctly. Are you are all talking about the main page and the "In The News" section where we list recent deaths by name only? I always thought that was a poor way to do "In the news." Since 90% of those names mean zero to readers I always felt a one/two-word descriptor should always be present to give a minimal understanding of the person who died. Just a name is pretty weak. It should be actor John Doe * politician Fred Zip * baseball player Xander Xylophone... I think the problem is bigger than just a disambiguation issue. Today's In the news I knew none of the names but at least a descriptor would give minimal context to who just died. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  That was in essence what I just proposed. Why are you opposing? Because I didn't suggest giving a descriptor for all recent deaths? WaltCip-(talk) 18:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  It is not really what you proposed. We don't really need parentheticals unless you do it after the name, and it seemed you wanted it for people who shared a name with someone else living rather than helping out "all" names for our readers. You'll note the "In the news" doesn't say "Ukraine", it says "Russian invasion of Ukraine." I little bit goes a long ways and should be standard procedure for "all" names of recent deaths. We're talking about helping our readers understand something, and that is always my prime objective. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  I could support Fyunck's egalitarian approach, pending a suitable Main Page layout. I oppose the subjective "immediately recognizable" or relying on imperfect primary topic history.—Bagumba (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose We only should consider this when the confusion is with a readily-recognized name (famous or household) - its that "panic" we're trying to avoid when a name with nearly worldwide recognition appears but the famous person with that name is still alive. When the issue is naming conflict between two or more bios in which all involved lack that fame with their name, then it doesn't make sense to add a disambig term since its not going to cause the same type of panic. --Masem (t) 17:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose We pipe them in other articles, it reads more naturally and saves space here, too. Also, briefly thinking a beloved celebrity is dead is a good thing. Revealing the truth with a click is cathartic, helps us hold on to what we've got. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• For a concrete example, does this mean if the hurdler Harry Kane dies, we use "Harry Kane (hurdler)" or "Harry Kane (hurdler)", not "Harry Kane", to avoid people thinking that the football player Harry Kane has died? —Kusma (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The example I was about to bring up is Donald L. Trump. I think it's patently obvious that neither the article title (disambiguated solely by middle initial), and certainly not piped as Donald Trump, would be appropriate to post. —Cryptic 14:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. That is the intention. WaltCip-(talk) 14:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• By what standard to we judge "If there is the possibility for confusion as a result of the living person being immediately recognizable to the reader". I am inclined to vote support if we know how we are to assess "immediate recognizability". Where can I look to find such data that would lead me to conclude that one person is immediately recognizable, while another one is not? --Jayron32 14:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  One indicator could be if a person is primary topic for their name. —Kusma (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know if that is sufficiently restrictive, nor even useful, as many primary topics are long since dead, and other "primary topic" persons are themselves only marginally well known at all. --Jayron32 14:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think that alone would be restrictive enough. Even if the primary topic is long dead, disambiguation will forestall the potential confusion of "wait, I thought this person died already". The primary topic test is my preferred test for the purpose of this RFC. I recognize that the wording of my original RFC is subjective, and that is because ITN is, on the whole, a subjective, consensus-based process. Ultimately, if the people responsible for discussing an RD agree through consensus that it would be beneficial to disambiguate, then we should honor that consensus. WaltCip-(talk) 14:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  If someone else is the primary topic i.e. the article with no disambiguation is for a different person, as is the case for singer Sam Smith, then I believe we must disambiguate. On ITN RD, it looks like singer Sam Smith has died, when it was actually someone else- and you had to click through to find that out. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Part of the problem I have is the implicit assumption that all editors at Wikipedia (and all readers as well) has a such a common set of experiences that we can presume everyone knows what is (and is not) widespread and well-known enough to trigger this condition. I would prefer if we started with the opposite assumption (one that I operate under for all of my decisions at Wikipedia), which is that literally no one has the same experiences I do, and I should presume that literally no one necessarily knows what I know. If we defended our decisions and policies by pointing at stuff people can read or verify themselves, if they are unfamiliar with something, that is much preferable to assuming they know something merely because I know it. --Jayron32 14:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe we should always disambiguate when there is a living person with a Wikipedia article and the same name. —Kusma (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Per the recent discussion at ERRORS, the primary topic Sam Smith wasn't even the one most of the participants there even thought of. If EGG and BLP are the real concern 1) we can't assume readers are necessarily thinking of the unqualified primary topic 2) we should display a qualifier in all cases—even the primary topic—lest those thinking about a "less notable" person of the same name are also shocked and confused.—Bagumba (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Prior discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_85#What_to_put_in_the_RD_line_for_cases_where_there's_a_well-known_individual_of_that_name?—Bagumba (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think that one had a soft consensus for using the disambiguator, although it was so close that it's not surprisingly that it did not close with a consensus. WaltCip-(talk) 15:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  All depends if "consensus" is 51% or closer to 65-70. —Bagumba (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• It's not a major issue unless you are the one with the name posted as having died. This causes needless grief and confusion. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but even showing Sam Smith (basketball, born 1944) wouldn't have been very distinguing for Sam Smith (basketball, born 1955) followers.—Bagumba (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Surely people are aware that those with the same name as them may die occasionally. Any grief or confusion would be extremely brief and limited. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Existing primary topic limitations We all know that some current primary topics are not really the "true" primary topic. Many times a newer more notable article is created, but many editors just disambiguate the new topic instead of dealing with moves and the tedious relinking caused by WP:USURPTITLE. Or there is no primary topic, but nobody has noticed to do an WP:RM or a bold move to put a dab at the base.—Bagumba (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I thought this was already the case, that if ambiguity existed, we then sought consensus for modifying what was in the RD listing. Do we really need a guideline to be included to cover this? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Apparently we do, because of the squabbling that takes place on WP:ERRORS any time an edge case shows up. WaltCip-(talk) 16:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Per WaltCip, I too am flummoxed that this is an issue, but my personal lack of understanding as to why it is a problem does not have any bearing on whether or not it actually is a problem; the matter comes up too often at WP:ERRORS to not be dealt with. --Jayron32 16:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  But unless a concrete objective way of disambiguation is agreed upon, then it will just devolve into discussion each and every time, as it does now. Dealing with issues on a "case-by-case basis" is simply how Wikipedia works by default when problems are raised. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Appropriate written guidance on how we should interpret issues of disambiguation, even if allowing latitude, at least gives us a principle to keep in mind when making the determination as opposed to just giving any administrator free reign to interpret the issue as they wish. For example, under the current environment, if Bagumba were posting an ITN item, he probably would just post the name as it is; if 331dot were posting it, he might not. The idea is to eliminate broad ambiguity and provide a guideline for decision-making. WaltCip-(talk) 17:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  This is probably the beginning of the "add their notability" into RD moment. We don't need to give admins instruction on how to avoid confusion, that's why we made them admins. And as you've noted, if these admins are posting ambiguous titles, then they shouldn't be. I concede there's a tiny issue here, but I can't see how this will eliminate or even mitigate ongoing discussion as to how these ambiguous cases are described. That will require its own consensus. E.g. individuals could be sportspeople, then actors, then diplomats etc. We'll need a consensus to pick which one is most appropriate. This just shifts discussion to another forum. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  ...if Bagumba were posting an ITN item...: AFAIK, it has been standard for posting admins to pipe disambiguated titles, but exceptions have been made per one-off ERRORS reports.—Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment 2 the proposal says "decedent is shared by that of another living person" I guess this should be "decedent is shared by that of another living person with a Wikipedia article", right? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Kiril Simeonovski de.wiki is all very well (it's run by basically one or two editors and no consensus or RS or whatever are required for posting to the main page) but we'd I see you're advocating for exactly what I noted above, "add their notability" which would also need consensus to determine in many cases what an individual's notability was.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Like when a person I think of as an actor has "is an American actor, comedian, writer, producer, and film director" in their lead (see MOS:ROLEBIO) —Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly. We're literally just creating another bone of contention. We can't indoctrinate this in guideline. We should rely on the competence of our admins to deal with this. I see no major problem with ERRORS being the venue either. Putting the discussion at ITNC will just delay consensus and promotion. Exactly not what we want. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think it’s good to have a guideline (not a rule) to make clear which disambiguator to use in a particular case. If we let admins decide themselves what’s the best way to deal with, we may easily end up in the simultaneous use of parenthetical disambiguators and middle initials as the most commonly used disambiguators so far. Other than that, my best choice would probably be to adopt the in-line listing of RDs with very brief explanation from the German Wikipedia at the very least.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  de.wiki is a one man show and no care is paid to BLP, we'll have endless debates over whether e.g. Kevin Spacey is an actor or a director or a criminal. This is not helpful to a section of the main page where timeliness is of the essence. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment As I mentioned in the Oppose section, this is a bigger problem than simply the disambiguation in the suggestion. Just throwing up names is inherently confusing to readers. It would be like reading an obituary in the New York Times with no context whatsoever except the person's name. I always felt that was a poor way to do "In the news" recent deaths. Since 90% of those names mean zero to readers I always felt a one/two-word descriptor should always be present to give a minimal understanding of the person who died. Just a name is pretty weak. It should be: actor John Doe * politician Fred Zip * baseball player Xander Xylophone... I think the problem is bigger than just a disambiguation issue. Today's In the news I knew none of the names but at least a descriptor would give minimal context to who just died. Sure there might be a well know actress or government official that really doesn't need a descriptor, but I think we should get in the habit of always including a pre-name descriptor for the sake of our readers. It will add minimal length to the section. And if a person is know for multiple endeavors we only need one listed... just something a reader can grasp to give minimal context to something other than a name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  The question is what readers care about. If you only care about people you know, seeing the name is enough to figure out whether to click or not. If you care about all recently deceased cricket players, including those you have never heard of, you need a "cricket player" descriptor. —Kusma (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  So there we disagree. It should not be about what people care about. It is what is best and helpful for our readers. My guess is most people see a list of these indiscriminate names, don't know anyone, and they move on...never clicking on any of them. It's what I usually do. But if it says "scientist Eugene Parker" it gives context and may have a few more hits because of the subject matter. Look, I know it would help me, and maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I always felt we needed a tiny bit more than just a list of six to ten names for anyone in the recent deaths list. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  There also the "I don't know, so I click" and occasionally read something I surprisingly find interesting, versus the bias that I can see the subject area already, now I won't even bother clicking (and expand my horizons).—Bagumba (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Hey that could be true... but if most folks are like me, they see the list of unknown names and skip right over it. Where if a subject matter is presented I think it would actually lead to more hits. But I wouldn't really do it just for hits, it always seemed like something was missing from the list that could help our readers. Anyway, I had gotten a talkpage feedback request to visit this conversation and try and help so I added my two cents in what bothered me about the way we presented things. We can do better than the requested change request. I guess I'll see the results in the coming weeks when I visit the main page. Cheers to all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I realize there's a great deal of support in principle. I also recognize that some of the proposed wording I have used for this RFC may either be too wordy or imprecise. To that end, for those who supported this proposal, I welcome any ideas as to how to make a more consolidated guideline while also factoring in criticism from the oppose group.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't support, and I think only differentiating the "less popular ones" ends up looking a bit demeaning (yes, we have WP:PRIMARYTOPICS, but that's to save most readers one click on a dab; not the case with RD). I'd propose adding a qualifier to all names, something like: · Ray Liotta (actor) · Oemarsono (politician) · Joe Pignatano (baseball) · Horst Sachtleben (actor) · Achmad Yurianto (bureaucrat) ·Mpho Moerane (politician) Should only take up an extra line of real estate. The RD nom template could have suggestions for the qualifier, useful in some cases where there are multiple roles in the lead sentence.—Bagumba (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'd personally have no objection to that. It would remove the need for a case-by-case determination, which TRM says is currently redundant. WaltCip-(talk) 15:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Bias

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.

---

Very disgraceful, and telling of the sort of manipulative SJW bias this column is under, that there is nothing about the Sri Lankan crisis, just as there was nothing about the similar ripples in Bulgaria, nothing about the Netherlands; not to mention that the inane news about the third-rate dictatorial communist Santos now gets the top spot (died at 79, of natural causes), after the barely noted Abe assassination -- which would be a quite unique event in political history, affecting a major power, were it not for Abe's right-of-center political views (and his assassin's leftism), which seem to make it "forgettable". Dahn (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Wait, there's something happening here in the Netherlands? Do you mean the farmers' protests over nitrogen-oxide-related laws? I wasn't aware it had an international impact. I will note that the Abe assassination got the most prominent spot it could've gotten, other than maybe getting an "ongoing" spot which would be unheard of for a single death. If you believe that the consensus presented in the discussions for which news stories to blurb is the result of a political bias, I'm sorry to hear that. It's possible that the ideology of active people on this project doesn't overlap well with your own. I can invite you to join these discussions from here on though, if you want to help balance this possible bias out. :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Dahn, I just posted the Sri Lanka crisis. It wasn't posted previously because the article content was not high enough quality. Nothing has been nominated regarding Bulgaria or the Netherlands; we cannot consider what is not nominated. Abe's assassination has gotten the same prominence as every other posted nomination. This rant is not helpful. Please try to understand how ITN works before making ridiculous accusations, and otherwise try to participate in the process by nominating events that haven't been nominated. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Farmers' protests, as covered by a string of international sources, certainly have more of an international impact than Santos' death.

"Got" the most prominent spot -- now it is surpassed by Santos' death, which has no business even being there at all.

"It's possible that the ideology of active people on this project doesn't overlap well with your own." -- Not that I was making an ideological point. I could have any ideology, and still note, honestly, that even the assassination of a despicable Abe is still more newsworthy than Santos' death in hospital. They are both former national leaders, but only one led a world power and was assassinated (note: not just a death event, but an assassination). Ideology in itself should not be a problem, if people active here do not follow their ideology in deciding what is news. First one reports, one gives people some semblance of what may interest them at a world scale, and then, somewhere, and preferably not on wikipedia mainspace, one discusses how it affects one and one's ideology. Supposing I were right-wing or far-right, I would still have commentary to make on events that I dislike, rather than burying my head in the sand and ignoring that they exist altogether. There is something deeply unsettling when we are no longer giving people the news that might interest them because that would not suit our ideology.

Even if I were entirely out of the loop about how ITN works, I would still be expected to comment on how and why people nominate articles, which amounts to the same issue of bias. The same goes for how event are featured -- Santos' death, again, as the leading event for today. (It is almost a month since the government of Bulgaria was brought down, over issues strikingly similar to what is happening in the Netherlands and in Sri Lanka. Was there anything in ITN over this?) Dahn (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to participate at WP:ITN/C and nominate those events that you mentioned. As it currently stands, your complete inaction in participating is in itself perpetuating systemic bias. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Probably, but the first step is acknowledging the issue. I am currently working on immense improvements on Wikipedia for articles I enjoy writing about more than these; I do however have a duty to point out that the bias exists and is a problem. Dahn (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Items are posted chronologically, not based on subjective importance. They are not posted if they are not nominated, so you can solve the issue by participating, which will be more effective than complaining about "SJW"s. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Subjective importance still determines how they are nominated, tho. But are we in agreement that this is an issue? Dahn (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's always been an issue. Hell, HiLo48 was pointing out systemic bias in ITN/C as far back as 2011. And I've had my disagreements with him, but for the most part, he was generally right. We've made some steps to course-correct on that (removing the significance criteria for WP:ITN/RD was a start) but we're far from finished. You can look at the thread above this one and its fruitless discussion about significance of mass shootings to see how wide of a gulf there is. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Question re: Trump 2024 announcement

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.

---

Multiple sources are now reporting that Trump plans to announce his 2024 presidential election bid this month ([4],[5],[6],[7]). I would prefer to avoid a drawn out discussion at the time of that event and settle in advance whether this announcement is ITN-worthy. I think it would be, considering that it would be the first time in a century that a one-term former U.S. President announced a bid for reelection to the office. I would note, by the way, that a substantial draft has already been created for this event at Draft:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign. BD2412 T 00:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Nope, we don't consider the announcement of an election campaign anywhere to be ITN worthy. --Masem (t) 00:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• No, as was frequently said during his time in office, we are not a Trump ticker. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• No, we don't post announcements of plans to do something, we don't even post plans to do something, we post when things are done. Thryduulf (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Move the focus of ITN criteria to quality

Per the discussion above, I think much of the incivility at ITNC comes from unresolvable differences of opinion on significance. So just as an exercise, can we discuss what it would be like to change the nomination process to strictly focus on quality? As a draft criteria, "Editors at ITNC will determine if a substantial, high-quality improvement has been made to the target article reflecting recent events." Some thoughts:

• Significance would somewhat take care of itself. A quality update would necessitate citation to multiple reliable sources.
• There should be less pressure to force through "really big" noms with lousy articles. Similarly, conflicts involving ITNR should lessen.
• Regionial bias and IDONTLIKEIT becomes less of a factor.
• We may have an issue with truly insignificant gossip noms. However, I think it would be difficult to compose a quality update if nothing substantial has occurred.

GreatCaesarsGhost 00:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support in principle, but the wording might need tweaking. This is working great for RD for years. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As I pointed out above, we still need something that acts as the discrimination on news systematic biases. Significance is not enough because there are clearly cases of well-documented events that we'd normally not include, such as many topics on mundane US political events or stuff like the Depp/Heard trial, while major topics of import that are outside the norm of what Western media, which already struggle to get basic quality articles, would still flounder. --Masem (t) 12:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Why? The WP:ITN guidelines say nothing about fighting bias no matter how often that made up criteria is cited. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The Significance section implies this between the lines (such as "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them."), but realistically this should be part of that, that we are purposely selective to fight systematic bias. --Masem (t) 17:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't imply that at all, you've just decided it should. Get it added as a purpose or requirement, until then it's totally made up. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That's why I said "implies", I didn't say it did explicitly. --Masem (t) 01:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You make it sound unreasonable to suppose that the goal "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them" might imply something of bias. To be looking for only a specific subset of information is basically the definition of confirmation bias, at least, even if it hardly encompasses all of what may be called bias as a whole. The idea that something be "nonetheless of interest," seems to suggest that we favor stories that are surprising--ie. that they are news to us. Merely replicating the editorial spin of commercial publishers would not do that. Moreover, the philosophy of Wikipedia as a whole and it's neutral point of view would also seem to suggest that it's not our job to provide a digest of commercial news coverage click-bate. 142.126.80.63 (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose on the contrary, we should remove the quality criterion. Banedon (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  Can't remove the quality criteria if we are going to have topics given focus on the Main Page. That's a non-starter (a requirement beyond the scope of ITN) Masem (t) 13:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  Then we should remove the entire main page and redirect to https://www.wikipedia.org/. Banedon (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  Which, if you click the English, goes to the Main Page. We need a landing page, and the Main Page works, but we do want that to show what an open-wiki, crowd-sourced work can produce, and that's going to focus on quality over quantity. --Masem (t) 14:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  Then make another page that looks like https://www.wikipedia.org/ but is for the English Wikipedia only. You could argue that the Main Page "shows what an open-wiki, crowd-sourced work can produce"; I'll still say the Main Page shows a censored version of [what an open-wiki, crowd-sourced work can produce]. Banedon (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose It is embarrassing enough whenever we post some tiny ITN/R sporting event or some election in San Marino when the breaking news of the day gets held up because of quality problems in one section in a 200,000-byte article. No need to make this even worse. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should be focusing on events with long-term significance, that are covered in major global news sources, and have high quality articles. However, I do agree with King of Hearts that quality should become less important than more significant the event is; for the most significant events, like the invasion of Ukraine, this already happens, but we should codify this. BilledMammal (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  • ITN was founded because of the ability for us to create a fresh new article in the wake of a major event (9/11) that was actually good in quality. And that's been repeated for many other breaking events. If anything, the "breaking news" articles (created on the day of the event) that fail quality are those that are beyond the usual scope of western reporting, and there I think we recognize that a minimial 500 word article is going to be about as good as we usually can get. What is usually disappointing is the number of BIOS/RDs, elections, and other ITNRs that are created well before the event occurs that are poor in quality and do not get improved, and this is common to both western topics and those outside that sphere. We want the quality to weigh as important as the news importance because its supposed to show how fast we can come to either creating or improving such an article in the short time that ITN is meant to cover. --Masem (t) 01:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    • My point there is that sometimes it is not possible to get events up to sufficient quality, but the events are so significant that we must post them; the example of the invasion of Ukraine is one where the event is so significant that quality is almost irrelevant. However, I'm not particularly worried about codifying that; we already do that, and if such a change would be controversial then I would prefer to focus on the more important change of strengthening the significance requirements, though the addition of "long term", and the requirement for it to be widely covered in major global news sources. BilledMammal (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

      I have yet to see the case of a serious event with major worldwide implications not have legions of editors working to build and improve within the hours of confirmation of the event. You may have minor edit warring going on, or renaming or other things that happen in that immediate wake, but those articles which have serious reperussions at the global stage

      It is the events that are far less world-reaching but still significanSo we definitely can still look to quality for these events, these have never had problems. And remember that WP as a whole is not a newspaper, we prefer waiting to resolve quality than posting as soon as news breaks.t, and which happen outside of the Western world that tend to have the problem with getting the new article to quality in a short amount of time. Masem (t) 12:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• I feel like one of the lonely Jacobins railing against a monarchy built on the fundamentals of quality and significance. Nevertheless I am inclined to throw my lot in as a support in principle, in the hopes that one day this can be done and help solve the dysfunctional and subjective process that is determining significance. WaltCip-(talk) 00:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
• Increase quality standards irrespective of what happens to importance - At least that will force the legion of people who do nothing vote and bleat to contribute to WP instead of waiting for the *peasants* to present their world view for them. Even if the quality requirement was raised by 50-80% it's still extremely basic Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose because it actually needs to be in the news, removing significance means that we could just spend our time posting celebrity gossip if the article is good enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  Are that many celebrity gossip articles of amazing quality compared to recent events? 142.126.80.63 (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'd support for recently-created articles, and already try to !vote at ITNC this way. Per WP:ITNCRIT:

  Conversely, an editor may write an in-depth update on a topic normally considered marginal, thus convincing commenters that it is deserving of inclusion.

  However, I think it's more subjective on the "importance" of updates to an existing article, quality or not, so would keep the status quo for those types of incremental updates. The tricky part is how "recent" an article needs to be to be judged only on quality.—Bagumba (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per King of Hearts. Jusdafax (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This is an encyclopedia. News is not the focus. There are times when the significance of an event makes it possible to create a high-quality article quickly enough that it qualifies as news, and celebrating those occasions on the main page is appropriate. For the vast amount of topics, there are not going to be enough sources to create a quality article until quite some time later, and that's okay, too. Just because we have an "in the news" section doesn't mean we need to have something to post there every day, even. When an article is quality and newsworthy, hurrah! it's a special occasion. However, anything on the main page must be notable as established through verifiable, reliable sources.--~TPW 02:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral I can as easily argue for or against something being so grey and nebulous as "(high-)quality" on the same subjective grounds I (and certainly others) already contest the true meaning and supposed intent of enigmata like "significance", "purpose" or "relevance". Not saying I will or won't, just saying this won't be some great leap forward in civil obedience, much less utopia. As long as the updates have those fairly solid references and explain why the moment matters without misspelling anything, business as usual. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• I'd absolutely love this if I were an editor being paid by some company notable enough to get occasional news coverage, but not notable enough that it wouldn't get a boost from a link on Wikipedia's main page. After all, I'd be updating my client's page anyway. —Cryptic 17:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support The first purpose of the main page is to feature high quality articles. Given that purpose, we should be less concerned about whether an article is about a little-known event, and more concerned about whether it features the kind of article quality we want Wikipedia to be known for. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I doubt this would solve the problem of incivility raised in the earlier talk page section. -- Vaulter 16:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel that if we prioritized only the best-quality articles while dropping the "notability" requirement, articles about transfers of power in small countries would never be posted again. It's true that one of the core purposes of ITN is to feature quality Wikipedia articles, but its purpose doesn't end there. ITN's purpose is featuring quality Wikipedia articles to educate readers about significant events and featuring quality Wikipedia articles to provide ease of access to subjects that they're likely looking for more information on. In this context, "quality" means that it's better than stub class, properly sourced, and is overall serviceable. If "quality" were the only requirement, we would prioritize GA-class articles covering gossip over start-class articles covering elections. ITN is meant to be a useful tool for readers, not just an opportunity to show off how good some of our articles are.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I agree having a more mechanical/objective criteria for significance, leaving the subjectivity for quality, would be an improvement at ITN/C. That doesn't mean dispensing with the significance criteria altogether, just making it more objective, to reduce the subjective arguments. Levivich^[block] 17:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

How to keep this project civil and polite? (constructive feedback only)

As a bystander, I just can not come to terms with the extent of bickering and aggressive comments that get peddled around here, specifically on the blurb conversations (from both sides of the pond)! I speak for myself, when I say that this behavior frankly makes this place too toxic. What can we do to keep this place more civil? Constructive feedback alone. Ktin (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'd say delete it. There's been a 20-year debate over the purpose of ITN. Some say it's to "provide news to the people" and others say "it's to point people to quality articles". Then there's the bias, we have Americans trying to post every single mass shooting while we ignore bombings in warzones with masses of casualties. Then we have people saying how *stale* the ITN process is as it doesn't update regularly enough, yet those very same people then object to WP:ITNR items because they personally deem them trivial. It's a dead duck. ITN is dead and buried. Unless we come up with a proposal that pleases all of the people all of the time, I can't see a way it survives. So while civility is important (e.g. see one of the project's policies, WP:CIVIL), it's somewhat part and parcel of the fact that ITN is no longer viable really. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Let's not pretend there isn't heavy UK bias on ITN either. The problem with ITN is the subjectivity of us, the people who vote on nominations. Too many personal opinions and WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes lead to stalemates and negativity. If we could find a more objective measure of what is "in the news", that might help. I have no idea if that's possible. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  My observation is that conversations very soon seem to be devolving into a "you people" vs "we people" conversation and there is name calling and then hand-to-hand street fighting levels of comments exchange. Clearly we can do better by avoiding that portion of our exchanges? I personally like what some uninvolved editors have been doing by closing off-topic conversations with a box around them. Is that the answer - that we do more of those? Or should we really ask folks to be polite to fellow editors and call them out when they are not being so? What else can we do to keep interactions between people more civil? If it was IRL, I would say person A and person B go get a beer / beverage of your choice together. But, something has to give here. Ktin (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with your observation. Hatting the off topic sniping helps, and we should encourage people to do it more. We tend to be polite enough unless it's a contested nomination, where people seem to be judging them by completely different metrics. Like how some nominations get oppose comments because it's "expected" that it happens. Well, that's the case for every ITN/R nom, isn't it? There were some opposes of that nature on the platinum jubilee nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  So nominate mass shootings in the US at ITNR so we can stop the mindless debates every few days. Strangely, though, I interpret "expected" in the sense of ITNR as "scheduled" or "predicted", not "everyday events" like mass shootings in America, in schools or hospitals or shopping malls or wherever. Those aren't scheduled/predicted, but they are regular and predictable in the sense that they happen daily and nothing is ever done to stop them. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  • I'd disagree that the purpose or debates about it are the problem. There are a few individuals that are purposely contrary to what the general attitude is around ITN, which typically are the ones that stir up the incivility problems. They should know who they are but I would name names if pressed. These editors also tend to bring out the worse in other editors which compounds the situation, and it is often best to avoid anyone to "take the bait" when that happens.
  • It's also whenever the non-existance MINIMUMDEATHS is brought up. We should be acting as the loss of any human life is a tragedy, but recognize that not all such losses have the global significance that others have, regardless of the fashion of those losses, whether by natural or man-made disaster or more violent means (eg mass shootings in the US). We should be not trying to argue past ourselves on the relative importance of who lost their live, but consider each story as it generally pertains to ITN practices, meaning does it have significant news coverage (keeping in mind that routine situations should require more discrimination on what ones we post, just like how ITNR is meant to avoid floods of certain types of articles), and is the article updated. There will remain debate about when that significance is met, but that can be handled civilly without deriding other editors or broader groups beyond Wikipedia. --Masem (t) 00:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

    I agree that not every mass death event, be it natural causes or a US mass shooting, will be posted. But the absolute callousness of some editors around mass shooting nominations is appalling. I am not calling out any one person, there are many who post regrettable comments. This has been an ongoing problem for years. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic. Levivich 17:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, you're mistaken. There's no "callousness" about mass shooting nominations. They happen every single day in America and that makes it commonplace, a war zone, and not encyclopedically newsworthy. Every single one is tragic and we all know that, but practically every single one is avoidable and yet dealt with in exactly the same way, thoughts/prayers/more guns. It's a unique problem to America and should not ever be allowed to overwhelm this, English language Wikipedia's front page, with its barbaric repetitiveness. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC) This type of comment directed towards the US and its gun problem (eg "a war zone") is the type of thing that does not need to be at ITN and is part of the lack of incivility. That US gun violence happens with too much frequency to feature each one at ITN is absolutely a fair call, but that doesn't mean editors should go down the trail of speaking demeaning of the country or the people that live in it. We're discussing the appropriateness of a shooting event, not here to vent off political commentary. --Masem (t) 13:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC) I couldn't agree more with Masem here. There is callousness in these mass shooting noms, and then there's TRM calling the US a "war zone". That is just beyond the pale. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC) I can't think of anywhere else on planet Earth that children are regularly shot to death other than (a) in the US and (b) in warzones. So there you go. Not callous, just fact. You have my thoughts and prayers though, because apparently that's the only possible solution. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC) Like I said, beyond the pale. Maybe the solution to civility at ITN is for TRM to just pretend like we deleted it and the rest of us can go on without their snide comments. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC) There's nothing snide about stating facts. Where else are children routinely shot to death then? What did I miss? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC) It is not a fact that the US is a war zone. I just drove through part of it--no, no war zone, even though I live in fear for my own children. The rhetoric is just not helpful. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC) Sure, just point me to where else children are routinely shot to death other than in the US and war zones, that's the point. Deary me, it boggles the mind that you are trying to interpret this as a "literal" claim. Perhaps it's an ENGVAR thing. You guys. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ktin that this is a serious problem. I also agree with TRM that the best thing to do is to shut down ITN entirely, and possibly replace it with something that doesn't require !voting on nominations. Levivich 01:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

There will always been a requirement to !vote on article quality, so pretending to hide that "ITN can't have civil discussions" under this is not the way to go. --Masem (t) 01:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The whole idea of "let's vote on which news stories to feature on the main page" is naïve; of course that's just going to lead to endless arguments and poor decisions. Crowdsourced encyclopedia sort of works; crowdsourced news aggregating not so much. Levivich 01:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

As soon as you remove the process of consensus selection of stories, ITN becomes a news ticket and will suffer systematic bias. The whole point of !voting is to fight the systematic bias of news reporting and feature a broader range of topics that some get buried in news headlines. If you just want to see news stories without that filter, Portal:Current Events has that covered. --Masem (t) 01:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Well, what IS the purpose of ITN? Is it simply to highlight stories that are in the news and of interest to our readers? If so, does systemic bias matter? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, because then it would focus on "popular" news topics like US politics and celebrity gossip, while pushing aside scientific breakthroughs and other "less popular" news topics as well as important stories from other areas of the world. --Masem (t) 02:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Playing the devil's advocate here... is that a problem? We say it is because we're a worldwide encyclopedia, but we're an English-speaking encyclopedia first and foremost. Other Wikipedias seem to focus only on what would be of interest to their primary audience (for example, the Indonesian Wikipedia focuses on COVID-19 exclusively for Indonesia, as their readers are from there). I'm NOT saying that we should ignore systemic bias, but it is an idea. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
      • We can have the biases of mainstream news media, or we can have the biases of editors who !vote at ITN. Those are the options. Levivich 02:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Even if we considered what English-only language sources post (which is against our sourcing policy, we have no biases against foreign sources), consider what makes headlines in most Western, English sources - politics of the US or UK, for the most part. Which is typically just tiny progressive updates on larger stories. (Eg, the current debate in Wash DC on gun control laws in the wake of the last month). Newspapers are targeting a very different audience than what we as an encyclopedia try to target, and it is far better to apply a consensus-based filter - even if that leads to civil debates - to avoid that. If readers are looking for news, their better sources are sites like CNN, BBC, or NYTimes, not WP's front page. --Masem (t) 05:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

        Newspapers are targeting a very different audience than what we as an encyclopedia try to target...: There no firm consensus on the audience ITN is targeting.—Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

        Right, my understanding is that ITN exists as a helpful way for readers to go directly to articles relating to things they have heard of in the news. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

        WP:ITN leads off that it is to provide access to articles of "wide interest", which is not what newspapers serve, they provide highly national or regional coverage of topics. --Masem (t) 13:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

        Except WP:ITN is nondefinitive on what "wide interest" entails, hence the division. —Bagumba (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

        And many of the items that we try to post to reduce systemic bias aren't of wide interest, while many stories that are of wide interest, like Depp/Heard, would maintain systemic bias and are not posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

        "Wide interest" does not mean "popular". Science news is rarely ever popular, but have wide interest by academics across the world. --Masem (t) 18:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

        You are free to get that codified at WP:ITN. —Bagumba (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

        For all purposes, this already is, the bullet point starting "Arguments addressing how many international newspapers/news channels..." Masem (t) 18:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

        Sorry, there's nothing objective in that section on what constitutes "wide interest". It's merely a bunch of gotchas that could pretty much be used to justify posting or not posting the same exact blurb. —Bagumba (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia's target audience (everybody) is the same as news media's. I think Covid established that Wikipedia can be, is, and is expected by readers to be, an encyclopedia of current events (along with everything else). It's WP:NOTEVERYTHING, but it is everything significant for everybody. It's WP:NOTNEWS, but it is current events.
    The purpose of ITN is and should be, primarily (IMO), the first bullet point at WP:ITN#Purpose: "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" (like Covid). This includes not only current events but also background information, like articles about related people, places, etc. The background information has always been in Wikipedia's "wheelhouse", but I think in recent years we've seen that Wikipedia can provide reliable summaries of current events information as well. ITN (or its replacement) should help people find both kinds of information. Levivich 06:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia's audience is nowhere close to the same as mainstream newspapers. We're aiming for an academic audience, not those that are trying to keep up on current events. It's why we need the ability to allow stories that would not headline newspapers but are academically and educationally important (such as the Booker prize as a recent example). --Masem (t) 16:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

      I have no idea where you get the idea that we are aiming for "an academic audience", nor do I know what an academic audience is. Wikipedia is written for everyone, not just academics, not just students or teachers, everyone. The writing level is supposed to be aimed at a teenage English speaker. (I forget what page that's documented on.) Levivich 16:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

      I always feel that ITN items should be what we'd expect to see in a published encyclopedia of the "year gone by". And if we were being generous, we'd maybe have 1,000 entries, so perhaps three for every day. Forget "target audience" and think "historical evidence". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• The points under "the following arguments have historically not garnered much support" at Wikipedia:In the news#Significance are often what lead to incivility. The community can choose to police these better, or (continue to) not.—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• I'm for deleting ITN, which would solve this issue too. Banedon (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • How would we go about deleting ITN? Just run an MFD? Or propose its deprecation with a WP:CENT RFC?--WaltCip-(talk) 12:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Propose mark historical and remove from main page with a CENT RFC, I would think. Unless someone wanted to propose a replacement instead of just removal. I'm not sure what's best. Levivich 15:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment without hard requirements ITN is left up to the interpretation of vague guidelines resulting in a petty tit-for-tat of !votes and comments between regulars (of which I'm as guilty as any). We're featuring arcane awards, pointless disaster stubs, and a litany of sports stories based more on an unstable detente among a handful of Wikipedians than on actual news coverage. ITN should be wound down, and replaced with a listing from the WP:TOP25 where the next days listings are reviewed in advance for quality and references in a similar fashion to WP:OTD. The top 25 is generally driven by the news cycle anyway. In this proposal, "recent deaths" would remain as it's actually functioning pretty well. Wikipedia is allowed to evolve, to change, to improve and to make mistakes. Lets accept that ITN doesn't work anymore, and try something else. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  We're featuring...pointless disaster stubs...: But they're so easy to create.—Bagumba (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know how, but ITN should be more like RD with less room for disputing notability. Maybe TOP25 is the way to do that, I don't know. I don't have all the answers. I do think that irrespective of ITN, RD should continue as is. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  It could be based mostly on it being a quailty page. However, we would need objective criteria on what falls under "being in the news". New articles on new events could have a time limit e.g. within the last X days. Trickier would be news from something that's been ongoing e.g. the planning of Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II, the trial of Depp v. Heard, etc. Worst case, those remain under the current system. —Bagumba (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  I second the idea of leaving less room for disputing notability. I'm not sure what that looks like specifically--maybe "the story was a recent headline news item by at least one reputable international news website" (with a defined list of "reputable" international news websites) and "the event merits its own wikipedia article" is all that we need to establish notability. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I think ITN plays a useful role, in helping direct Wikipedia users to articles that the users are likely interested in due to being featured in the news. I think that ITN performs a useful secondary role, in motivating users to create articles about current events, and in improving the quality of such articles. I also think that, other than articles going stale, ITN currently fulfills its primary purpose. Thus I think the primary problem at this point is incivility, and therefore the solution should be focused on the incivility problem, not on the existence of ITN itself. Maybe we just need a few rules to enforce a higher standard of conduct on the ITN pages. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Irrespective of how this project evolves, I am going to ask that editors have to be civil and polite to each other and that should be a non-negotiable tenet of the project. If editors go on an off-topic attack or indulge in abusive language, we should clip it right there. Perhaps close the discussion by hatting (is that the term for boxing the comments?) or even send the editor on a time-out. The thing I compare this to is a message board at your workplaces / schools. Wouldn't we be polite to our colleagues at work / school? Our behavior here should be the same. Thanks again for listening to me. Ktin (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, but one person's workplace/school might be different from another's.[8] —Bagumba (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. Censorship should really not be tolerated. We are all entitled to our opinions, even if they're not popular in the United States. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Ktin was talking about being "civil and polite". That doesn't mandate that an opinion needs to be "popular". —Bagumba (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment the notion that we're not a news ticker is often repeated here, and these days I also argue that myself at many nominations,on the grounds that if that's the standard then it needs to be applied consistently. That doesn't mean it's the right approach, however. The "purpose of ITN" statement says that ITN exists to take readers to articles about subjects which are in the news. If that's the case then we should be a news ticker, at least for stories that are notable enough to satisfy GNG. We could decide to go down the same route that we have for RD, and simply post anything of suitable quality if it meets the "in the news" criterion. And perhaps use JavaScript or similar to make it scroll continuously through the stories. Thus is there are 30 active at a time, they can all be seen. I wouldn't necessarily be averse to this notion if the right proposal were made.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  • +1. We already have "the raw materials" for a news ticker in Portal:Current Events, and the WP:TOP25. RD and Ongoing are two ticker-like parts of ITN, and they are the two parts that work well (unlike blurbs). I do think that a news ticker is probably the best way of fulfilling ITN's purpose of directing readers to articles that are in the news. Levivich 16:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Using either of these would fail the requirement that front page target links must represent high quality standards of writing for WP. So this is not an option. --Masem (t) 16:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

      Consensus can do anything it damn well pleases, including changing any requirements we have. So yeah, it's an option. And, anyway, we can filter entries in a news ticker by article quality. !Voting on article quality at ITN works fine (in fact, it often leads to rapid improvements in articles, so it kind of works great); it's the !voting on significance that doesn't work. Levivich 16:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

      We already filter RD entries for quality, so any potential news ticker idea could simply follow the same sort of process. And it's not like we check for articles being "high quality" right now. There's a minimum standard of being fully cited and not omitting major detail, which is the same standards we have at DYK and OTD, and that's about it.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  • the notion that we're not a news ticker is often repeated here...: A relevant question is "by how many people"?—Bagumba (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

    Well I don't know exactly how many people say this, or indeed if it's the view held by a majority of participants here, but it's certainly said often enough to give it the air of an unofficial policy. And the regularity with which we reject encyclopedic stories in the news (e.g. Vauxhall helicopter crash, Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, Megxit and numerous shootings in the US and bombings in the middle East, to name a few which immediately spring to mind) suggests that an RFC is needed if a new way forward is to be attempted.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

    One thing we try to avoid is inclusion of news stories (even with quality articles) that would set an overly-broad consensus to include equivilant ones. For example the Kavanaugh nomination would mean that for every other country that has a similar process to name individuals to the nation's top course, we should include all of those, but that's going to be far too many stories. Hence, why that was a non-starter. The same rational for why we avoid pointing every single US gun shooting. We also purposely avoid celebrity gossip for that same reason, hence the non-posting of Megxit. --Masem (t) 17:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

    Celebrity gossip ≠ celebrity news. Most gossip is already filtered by WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:RSBREAKING. The celebrity topics that have a standalone article e.g. Depp v. Heard—as opposed to a mere one- on two-line mention in a bio—at least seem like viable candidates for discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

    Still, we try to avoid celebrity news because 1) that's an area given additional focus by the media due to systematic bias and 2) in most cases, the effects have little impact on the rest of the world, the Depp/Heard case being a prime example of a lot of ado that affects only two people. --Masem (t) 17:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

    "Impact" is subjective. Many got as much (if not more) entertainment from Depp/Heard as they do from our sports/entertainment ITNRs. And the platinum jubilee should be fair game for systemic bias criticism.[9] —Bagumba (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

    "getting entertainment out of news" is the entire reason we don't post celebrity news like that. Yes, the Depp/Heard trial is a valid encyclopedic topic, but we should treat it encyclopedically and not as a spectacle of entertainment. Masem (t) 18:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

    We didn't post it because there wasn't consensus. There's no rule or guidance at the WP:ITN page that specifically precluded that from being posted. Just like there's no rule about "not news ticker", "global importance" or "being transformative". As it currently operates, it's mostly a !vote count, as there's little grounds to discount !votes, given the vague and subjective guidance. —Bagumba (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

    All those points you claim are not in ITN explicitly fall under the lede para "ITN supports the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia." That includes fighting the systematic bias of mainstream media, among other aspects that fall under WP:NOT. That all implies we should be selective of what types that posted as blurbs rather than falling into the routine patterns of how news works.

    We did make the reasonable consensus that RDs should be posted as long as there's an update as to avoid a lot of discussion as to RD blurbs, and ongoing was made to do the same for long-tail news events. We also have ITNR to make sure that we have a broad selection of topics of various academic interests so that we're highlighting important parts of non-politics and non-entertainment news that will ofter go overlooked. All these are facets that support why we want to be selective on what blurbs we post. Masem (t) 17:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Last I checked, ITN isn't a fiefdom exempt from WP:5P4. -- Vaulter 17:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  And don't underestimate the effectiveness of WP:TBANs. —Bagumba (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah but we also shouldn't underestimate the difficulty in obtaining them for veteran editors. Levivich 17:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Or those telling the awkward truth. Yes, very difficult. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Nothing worth having comes easy. —Bagumba (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Plus always a bit awkward to seek topic bans on people providing their personal opinions during debates. Sounds a bit like censorship, or fascism perhaps. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Ideally, people's opinions wouldn't matter in ITN. But it's impossible to create an objective bar for a blurb. Also, topic bans for opinions isn't fascism (although it is silly), as Wikipedia is not a government. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  I was aiming at the "forcible suppression of opposition" angle of fascism, obviously. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Personally, I feel there needs to be a discussion like this regarding the future of ITN. As TRM mentions above, it seems to be devolved into people who want to show things that are in the media spotlight, and those who wish to show of quality articles. I think I vere towards the quality end of the discussion, but I have seen some truly ridiculous comments at ITN recently. I've seen many arguments of WP:NOTNEWS posted to be against a specific nomination. If we were to take NOTNEWS to heart, ITN should be discontinued. We have RD items that are being opposed because !commenters suggest the subject isn't well known, despite a consensus, and ITN/R items shouldn't be posted, but then no conversation ever happens at ITN/R. There is a need for certain arguments to be struck. There also (unless I've never seen it) not really a criteria as to when to mark something as (ready). Can this really be done by anyone? I've seen it done by people who were in the discussion, as well as nominators! DYK by contrast has very strict rules on how nominations and blurbs can be dealt with, and usually have to go through two people before they get into a prep set. Maybe I've misread how ITN operates, but from the above, maybe it's worth hiring up some co-ordinators for the project, or at least get some better notes on how what arguments are invalid. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  DYK is an interesting (and consistently short-staffed) model. They had some smart-ass little kid develop a "prep promoter" which means fewer sets of hands and better sets of eyes when actually mounting preps. Very small cadre of vastly experienced hands over there. Those little kids will run the foundation one day. If we're fortunate. BusterD (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  We definitely need to pick some automation from projects such as WP:DYK. Our project relies a tad too much on a very few admins. I remain in awe of the work that some of them put-in, but, we should reduce our reliance on a very few. Ktin (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Some are misapplying WP:NOTNEWS, a policy about not turning every news items into a standlone Wikipedia article. It doesn't apply to ITN blurbs, which is "in the news".—Bagumba (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  ...get some better notes on how what arguments are invalid.: The existing ones at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Please_do_not... are routinely ignored. The burden is on admins to discount them when determining consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  ...not really a criteria as to when to mark something as (ready): I haven't noticed this being problematic. It's just an indicator; ultimately, the posting admin needs to do some due diligence and not just blindly post a "Ready". If anything, marking "Ready" seems underused (for RD at least); people often ask why XYZ isn't posted yet, but haven't taken the step to mark it ready to draw attention. —Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  NOTNEWS doesn't say we can't cover current events, but we should be trying to cover them in an encyclopedia fashion, meaning we should be trying to take into account of the 10-year view of topics. (Wikinews is for those that want to write more as a newspaper style). That may mean that some news events are really non-events that can be incorporated into other topics, while for others a standalone is reasonable, but we should initially focus on the objective facts of the events instead of overloading it with reactions and the like. From ITNs standpoint, that's why for some topics we focus on one key point in the larger story (the point of a conviction, the point when a business merger is accepted by both companies and announced) rather than on each individual step. --Masem (t) 17:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• User:The Rambling Man helps us enormously when their first words in a thread about civility (requesting only constructive feedback) are "I'd say delete it." We thank you TRM for demonstrating the kind of problem we're facing. Some contributors simply jump to extreme comments out of the box and then badger the discussion which follows, finding some of their comments hatted for being off topic. I'm actually not biting TRM here, who I generally regard as an ally. Ascribing intent aside, honest disagreement keeps me awake and thinking. Perhaps there should be a group participating in discussions here who have proved they can be trusted to argue without heading for the highest peaks of disruption. Perhaps certain demonstrated disruptors can be limited in the number of comments they can make in a thread in this board. There are lots of valid issues to discuss in the thread above but proven and demonstrated disruptors should be effect-limited in some way. BusterD (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  I really mean it. It's clearly not fit for purpose as it stands, basically a ticker for mass shootings, not long back a ticker for Trumpisms, etc. It's just generally a popularity contest rather than an encyclopedic endeavour, and that's not what this overall project should be about. Oh, and if we're talking about "disruptors" then we should start with people who object to ITNR based on notability rather than quality. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Many of the regulars do try to fight against the consensus discussions from becoming popularity and fame contests, and I think that we need to stress that ITN is not there to feature stories about popular/household names in the news (including blurbs for such "beloved" RDs). We do not want ITN to mirror headlines and thus become a US news ticker. --Masem (t) 18:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hear, hear, TRM. There seems to be a growing number of people who believe that the primary method to express disagreement with a consensus, rather than following the guidelines and procedures set out through years of consensus-building, instead choose to be deliberately disruptive in the name of an often misused and misapplied policy. ITN is the way it is through years of consensus precisely because of our mission to feature quality, notable content while not falling into the pitfalls of systemic bias. Discussions like these are the correct way to make changes, as opposed to metaphorically pissing on the wall and making a scene of one's self. WaltCip-(talk) 19:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  The "UK bias" stuff is nothing but a conspiracy theory. Americans getting upset over things being nommed that are bigger on an international level than say, the Super Bowl, need to back down. Yes, the Jubilee is bigger than the Super Bowl. Deal with it. --2.30.55.86 (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Here we must thank the IP contributor (whose only edits thusfar have been disruptive) to break the streak of serious posts and demonstrate the potential value in indefinitely semi-protecting such a forum, to repel contributors which have absolutely no dog in this hunt. BusterD (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  I should add one can certainly whack a mole, but the potential for holes expands exponentially when the universe of all misguided and immature unregistered ground-dwelling mammals is made unavoidable to the forum's ears. As I'm waxing poetic I'm starting to convince myself. BusterD (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Except those "years of consensus" building has lead to problematic or contradictory guidelines that cannot be fixed without...more consensus! The project has changed over the years, but the bureaucracy we've set up makes it hard to correct errors of precedent from years ago. So it stays broken. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Claiming the past consensus guidelines are "in error" isn't true. ITN draws new editors who may read ITN process but come away with their own desire for what it should be and then (to the point at hand) try to insist their new way us the right way. If there is a perceived issue with older approaches the right solution is to propose that here rather than to try to ran the change through on nomination discussions. Masem (t) 15:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  "cannot be fixed without...more consensus!" I hate to break it to you sir, but that's how Wikipedia operates. And as Masem said, the talk page discussions are there for a reason, to prevent mob mentality from dominating our processes, like when we had a group of editors try to stop an ITN/R item from being posted because their favorite cyclones weren't getting blurbs. WaltCip-(talk) 16:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  See, you're proving my point: in one breath defending the sanctity of consensus, and in the next referring to a consensus you disagree with as a mob. I'm not talking about differences of opinion. I'm talking about when the rules tie themselves in knots, and editors advocate the rule the fits the outcome they want while ignoring others. You literally are trying to advocate ITNR guidance over IAR, insisting that the other guy just doesn't understand the rules. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, "mob mentality" and "their favorite cyclones" is exactly the kind of language that is a problem at ITN. It's dismissive of those with a different opinion. Levivich 19:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  They are more than welcome to have a different opinion. But they don't get to disrupt an established process just to make a point. Several of them explicitly stated in their rationales that they were responding because cyclones and storms they had (or hadn't) nominated were not posted. I allowed them to raise their concerns about America's Cup being on ITN/R by creating a discussion on the talk page to remove the item. Hardly any of them showed up. They just weren't interested. So yes, being POINTy en masse is mob mentality. WaltCip-(talk) 19:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  If the consensus at a higher traffic page believes something on ITNR is not worth posting, it should not be posted and it should be removed from ITNR. Your insistance that consensus must be ignored and debate moved to a lower traffic forum is a clear violation of WP:NOTBUREAU. I understand this is an "established process" but it is a garbage process at odds with WP:5P. Our guidelines are meant to make discussions at ITNC more productive; not subvert them. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  It is disruptive on any process page on WP to come in and brigade about something wrong or the like in the wrong part of the process when there is usually a talk page intended for that discussion. Eg I would not use a random AFD to assert AFD was broken. The point of ITNR items and the list is well established so arguable about the ITNR process at a random ITNC is disruptive, particularly when several like-minded editors who are not regulars to IRN suddenly participate that way (that is approaching CANVAS). We have had far too many ITNC discussions go well beyond the scope of whether the specific ITNC merits posting and we need to push out if scope discussions to this talk page. --Masem (t) 17:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment ITN clearly has problems, primarily due to the few consistent contributors and the fact many who do contribute have zero involvement in other areas of the wiki. The same people come day after day to do battle with their enemies in this walled garden. Many of those involved here openly admit they see ITN as a nationalistic battleground: "anti-American bias" accusations are basically a daily occurrence - yet fail to see ITN has a bias towards including topics from both the UK and US. Here is a perfect example of childish, pointy behaviour from April that demonstrates conduct completely at odds with a collaborative project. Perhaps internal politics like that drive other editors away from ITN. WP:ITNR is a confused, subjective mess and should probably be scrapped or opened for wider discussion and major revision. Many items have been listed with minimal discussion. I don't think the answer is to shut ITN down. Our readers clearly come to us for non-paywalled, reliable information on topics that are in the news. We really need more competent, level-headed editors who have experience across the project to become involved. We also need to actually have enforcement of policies regarding no personal attacks and unacceptable disruptive battleground behaviour. AusLondonder (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  That discussion is a clear example of editors trying to be purposely disruptive, and what absolutely needs to be stopped to help improve civility. There's too much "reverge" type comments involved with that case, and if one wants to challenge the status quo, then that's what this talk page is for. --Masem (t) 17:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I definitely agree with AusLondonder with the frustration with those who don't do any work and just come to lobby for more emphasis on their favoured topics, especially the saying certain countries are more important or have more readers so should be favoured. eg to take a blast from the past Mwalcoff (talk · contribs). It would be good if people who don't do work get ignored Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Awwww you called me childish and pointy, while being such a toxic and nasty person yourself, how sweet. Know what's work? Reading the articles, reading the guidelines, and applying the two is work. That was a good-faith nom to pull something from ongoing when irrelevant incremental updates to the same story were going up as blurbs. Guess what? The later stopped happening. We have a specific guideline against opposing an item from just one country yet routinely items from the US are shot down as being "us-centric". We have a fake requirement for "global significance" which doesn't seem to apply to trash articles about a building fire in Bangladesh or a church shooting in Nigeria. ITN has guidelines and they've gone completely and utterly out the window. Maybe what we need is for POV warriors to stop boosting (or booing) stories they think should (or should not) be in the news. It's a thought, doomed I know, but a thought. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  If you believe that there's a disconnect between the guidelines and how practice actually works, that's a good reason to start a talk page discussion. That is not a good reason to be purposely disruptive on every ITNC, which is a failure of WP:POINT and other civility guidelines, particularly when those posts of disruptive approach personal attacks against others. --Masem (t) 12:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the bold text, I would have missed that word without it. "every ITNC"? Show me where it's "every" or maybe correct your what I'll assume for now was an accidental inaccuracy. I literally wrote an app to catalog content updates to ongoing items, shared the results at ITN/C, and still struggled to get the guidelines actually adhered to. I have to listen to people call me pointy and disruptive? Which of you actually put in that level of effort? I think the two of you might need a trip over to AN/I for the insults and lies. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Here is an example of incivility in ITN/C discussions: a clear and gratuitous ad hominem by The Rambling Man against Andrew Davidson. No, it doesn't have profanity, it's not a racist or sexist comment, but it is a blatant "poke" directed at another contributor, not at all on topic, not at all about the article subject. And that's during this discussion. Now I know that a half dozen admins are going to read that thread, and one of them will close it. Will anyone do anything about it? Will anyone besides me even say anything about it? No, because we tolerate this level of discourse. I guarantee that at least one person will respond to this by saying that the comment I'm linking to is not uncivil. Levivich 19:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I mentioned that there were a handful of individual editors that generally behind problems of civility on ITN. These type of back of the hand insults - which are extremely hard to call out from an admin standpoint for any action given the wide tolerance that WP as a whole uses for civility - are what needs to be better tempered overall. We could say that this thread should be seen as a type of last warning for civility manners with any future problems to be taken to ANI, but that's really hard to do. It would better to outline what are not helpful comments at ITN in the process page (such as debating the merits if ITNR at an ITNC discussion, complaining about lack of other posts, or edging on personal attacks, with then admit stopping such discussions quickly. If repeat behavior by one or more individual editors continues that way, then ANI becomes more reasonable to seek action. We do need to though allow reasonable counterarhuments at times, which can be indistinguishable from these poor behaviors, so that complicates matters. Masem (t) 19:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with everything you've written, except that we already have an outline about what are not helpful comments at ITN, e.g. WP:ITN#Significance says Arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful. This point has already been made in this discussion, but we all know that routinely people oppose a story because it only affects a particular nation and is not international. Yet these oppose !votes are never discounted, or at least I've never seen them be discounted in a closing statement. In fact, I don't think I've ever read an ITN/C closing statement that discounts !votes for any reason at all. So while I hate to lay this at admins' feet, it kind of is at the feet of, well, if not admins, at least closers, who are not enforcing the rules already written. They don't discount "bad !votes" anymore than they do anything about incivility. BTW, "doing something" doesn't mean blocking people or TBANing them or even using admin tools at all. Just a simple warning on a user talk page would be helpful, but nobody really does that, either. (And I agree that not every instance of a heated compliment or backhanded slap needs to be addressed, sometimes you just ignore it and let it slide, but we seem to let it slide every time.) Levivich 20:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Admins are generally bad at leaving closing statements. I'm not sure if it's any worse at ITN than at other venues. For that reason, it's hard to say when discounting takes place or not, but I'm going to guess that few get that close to make a difference (not to say it doesn't happen). —Bagumba (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  ...anymore than they do anything about incivility. BTW, "doing something" doesn't mean blocking people or TBANing them or even using admin tools at all: What you are saying is that this is something everyone can be doing, admins and non-admins alike (WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, of course) —Bagumba (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly. Levivich 22:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  It's far from ad hominem and it's actually a reflection of the fact that Davidson continually disrupts ITN with objections to ITNC and ITNR on grounds which he does nothing to change. There's nothing "backhanded" or "insinuated" in my comment. I think Andrew is being deliberately disruptive, on one hand he continually rails against ITN as being out of date and stale, and on the other he objects routinely to INTR items which would transition ITN a little bit quicker. Jesus, what is wrong with people here? Just because I object to mass shootings in the US? Just because I'm fed up with seeing mass shootings in the US nominated? Sounds like the censorship is on its way up. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment - After some further reflection, I recognize that in terms of incivility and combative behavior at ITN/C, I have been one of the regular offenders in that regard as I have tended to be dismissive of contrary opinions - whether or not I believe these opinions to be founded in policy or otherwise. If our goal is to improve ITN, I don't want to be part of the reason that this cannot be done. So I am more than willing to disengage from ITN/C indefinitely (a self-imposed topic ban, I suppose) in order to ensure that this can take place. Whatever outcome might arise from the above discussion, I do agree that maintaining civility and enforcement of the existing rules plays a huge role in being able to ensure that collegiate discussion can occur when proposing news-related items for posting on the main page. I regret that in many ways, in my 10+ years of tenure as an ITN editor, I contributed negatively to the atmosphere here. Do note I am not trying to fall on my sword nor solicit pity. But I do hope for continued long-term improvement of ITN to where it can become a model process on Wikipedia rather than a stain on the community, and that's ultimately what I'm aiming for, and I apologize greatly to those whom I sparred or insulted through my commentary and invective. --WaltCip-(talk) 20:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for saying this; it's upstanding. FWIW, as someone who just criticized you up above, I do not think your absence from ITN/C would improve ITN/C; we're better off with your participation than without it IMO, and this is true for like almost everybody. (Notwithstanding that everyone should feel free to take a break from anything at anytime if they want to do so.) If we all come out of this discussion being more careful about what we say at ITN/C, then I think that would be a great success. Levivich 20:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Walt, you're one of the very few voices at ITN I have any time for, your absence would make the place substantially weaker in keeping the US ticker tide at bay and I urge you to continue commenting, please. The last thing this project needs is an overwhelming US-centric ITN ticker. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for sharing. No need for swords here. "It's what you learn after you know it all that counts". —Bagumba (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I won't be changing how I approach ITNC, and I won't be made to feel guilty about my personal feelings. I reiterate that censoring opposition voices is fascistic. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree with you at ITN but I do think everybody needs to tone down the battleground rhetoric that is contributing to the problems at ITN. AusLondonder (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

People should not be threatened with censorship for holding and voicing their own opinions on the encyclopedic significance of topics at ITN. All I'm seeing here really is an attempt to hush people and threaten them with TBANs/ANI etc because their opinions are believed to be "callous" or "specious" or whatever phrase you wish to throw into the mix. ITN has always been (and will probably always be) a US-centric, death-centric ticker which doesn't reflect encyclopedic content, but also doesn't reflect "what's popular" i.e. WP:TOP25. It's fallen into the crevasse in between. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That said, at the same time, we don't need to talk down to editors that are expressing the opinions, which is nearly an assured thing right now on any US shooting ITNC. Editors are free to express "but this is a major shooting!", and the right way to approach that is to say "Shooting in the US happen too often to make posting of every single one an impossible task for ITN, so we only focus on exceptional ones", and not "you Yanks are gun-crazy!" ITN comments should be free of any personal politics and ideological statements, heck there's just a few of these in the Boris Johnson recall vote nomination, as those themselves can lead to enticing editors that feel strongly one way or another on a topic. --Masem (t) 12:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

We just has the BJP comments which have caused a serious diplomatic row & the no-confidence vote for Boris Johnson rejected for posting. Not sure I’m seeing much of an anti-US bias here, which keeps being repeated. Is their anything concrete in these claims? If so, provide evidence to such.80.194.73.125 (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

ITN tends to focus on stories that are "points of no return" or where the status quo has been upended. The BLJ comments is just political sword rattling and not a transition so it is not really a good news story, much less ITN. The Johnson no-cinfidence vote resulted in the status quo upheld, so there's not much to say there on ITN. --Masem (t) 13:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I marveled how on one day on ITN/C, I saw two separate comments for two separate postings within a day of each other: one claiming ITN had a horrendously obvious US bias, and another claiming ITN was biased against US stories, both apparently meant in all sincerity. We must be doing something right. WaltCip-(talk) 13:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think there's ITN equivalents akin to WP:AVOIDYOU. It's fine to make a comment on the specific event or class of events. Avoid sweeping generalizations of a country or its people, which an editor is liable to take personally if they have a connection to said country. "U.S. shootings", "British boat contests" fine; "those Americans", "them Brits", "there goes <country> again"—not so much. —Bagumba (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Though as another point, there are those that also question items that are ITNR (boat race) and even after being told that ITNR are based on prior consensus they still argue that, which also tends to become incivik. Editors are expected to know the practices, outlined st the main ITNC page at least, and contribution without that awareness is not helpful. Masem (t) 13:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll excuse the non-regulars. The rest, I don't know who intends it as a joke versus a WP:BATTLEGROUND for some past unsuccessful post(s). If it's policed, people are deemed uptight; if we leave it as a free-for-all (like we have), resentment grows, some perhaps driven off. —Bagumba (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Currently, there is no US news in ITN (although I do agree, it is quite death-centric) (also, today might not be proportionate) and about the US mass shootings thing, I think we've only blurbed two of them after making it almost halfway through the year (and those two shootings definitely got more coverage than anything that's on ITN right now).

And yes, ITN's article quality standards are very low compared to anywhere else on the main page. Imposterbruh (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Not always. Gilbert Gottfried did not get posted to ITN because his filmography was not sourced. A similar issue almost prevented the posting of Ray Liotta. Our standards aren't low, just uneven; although we are very susceptible to emotional pressure to "POST THIS RIGHT AWAY!!!!" if a story is of particular regional importance, and that doesn't help with the quality side of things. WaltCip-(talk) 16:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

What those cases show is that editors working on bios of creative individuals (actors, musicians, etc.) have broadly ignored the requirements of BLP which require stronger sourcing in general, including sourcing of every major film, book, etc. That's sadly the norm across the board that these -ographies tend to be missing sourcing. Masem (t) 16:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires inline citations for "material challenged or likely to be challenged." I don't believe filmographies and the like qualify as such, but that's really a conversation for a different thread. -- Vaulter 17:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

If they were only major characters in film, that would be reasonable, but most of the time it is minor roles and guest/cameo apperences in film and television that are the major problem since these cannot be readily validated except to IMDB which as we know is an unreliable source. I'm just saying that this is a years-long problem with BLPs and editors thinking that these should not be sourced properly. Masem (t) 17:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the practice is for ITN to be on par with DYK minimums. Per Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide:

The article in general should use inline cited sources. A rule of thumb for DYK is a minimum of one citation per paragraph...

—Bagumba (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment You've all made wonderful points! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I’ve been contributing to ITN in different capacities (e.g. voter, nominator, article creator, updater, nomination closer etc.) for more than 12 years now and my impression is that things are getting worse. There‘s an increasing number of editors who take it personally and get offended when you oppose an item, tease every single editor if they don’t agree with their opinion, put pressure on editors to change their mind with a caustic tone, downplay the significance of stories from underrepresented regions and many other things that shouldn’t happen at ITNC. Not that this wasn’t the case long time ago, but it was definitely less pronounced. All in all, it seems that ITNC has become a battlefield of egos instead of a place that should help stimulate diversity and break barriers. Should it be closed is a valid question but probably not as long as there’s interest to work on it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Closing it would be punting on the core problem: people's behavior. —Bagumba (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  Closing it isn’t a solution. Discussions on talk pages are more confrontational, but that doesn’t mean we should close them all. For a start, increasing the level of tolerance in a such environment is a must because, in many cases, those complaints regarding civility are so trivial that can be properly considered an instance of trolling elsewhere on Wikipedia. Whether someone compares the US with a war zone is an extremely minor issue that no rational editor cares about. There have been discussions in which bombings in Pakistan were treated similarly, China was subject to stereotypes and Putin was called a dictator, but no-one even dared to complain about the tone of those comments even though it wasn’t much different than the one in the critical opinions on the US-related topics. After all, it’s really rare to see personal attacks at ITNC, with most of the contentious comments being stereotype-driven generalisations. In the grand scheme of things, that’s an easily solvable problem.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  The biggest issue I see with policing civility and generalizations on ITN/C is that most everyone here who isn't an admin lacks the authority to condemn another user for incivility without themselves becoming embroiled in tu quoque argumentation. As one who has confessed above to poor behavior, I'd have no problem going out of my way to hold other editors accountable out of the sake of upholding WP:CIV, but I don't know how I could go about it in a way that doesn't come across as rank hypocrisy. WaltCip-(talk) 14:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Next steps

Thank you everyone for this conversation, I think this has truly been a constructive dialog in terms of surfacing issues that are fundamental to our ways of working. More importantly, to me atleast, this thread has shown that we have a few things to do.

1. Civility and user behavior: In reading all of the comments above, it is evident that almost all of us want to get this project to being civil and polite. We want this place to be a welcoming to new editors, and a place that energizes existing editors. We should do all that we can to enable that. As next steps on this front, we all have a few things to do. We need to watch for when our comments on threads / topics / nominations are impolite and stop that right then and there. There are always going to be topics that are more contentious than the others, even there -- no reason to not showcase our disagreements in a polite manner. I go back to my own metaphor of workplace / school discussion boards (e.g. slack). Our behavior, comments, and language here should be no different from how we would behave at our workplaces or schools. I am also a big fan of Nudge theory as a behavioral change enforcer. Perhaps there is something there that we could explore. Some examples - Update the edit box to explicitly throw an alert -- "Is your post keeping with civility guidelines of the project?" when we sense a potential issue. We also need to call out other editors (politely ofcourse) when they are deviating from these principles. There is a bit of a tenure issue that can come up with folks not wanting to show the mirror to relatively tenured editors. This is where we will need the assistance from other tenured editors to collectively get us to a good place.
2. Evolution of the ITN box: In reading the comments, it does appear that while some editors want to shutdown (my words not theirs) the project, most editors do not seem to think that we need to shutdown the project just because we are not able to sort our own behavioral issues. In my own thinking that would be like cutting the nose to spite the face. That said, collectively re-imagining the future of WP:ITN is not a bad thing to work toward. During my day-time off-wiki, I talk a lot about disruption. It truly requires mature organizations to disrupt themselves in a way to continually stay relevant, while resisting all sorts of status quo pressures. Toward this goal, if there is an appetite for re-imagining WP:ITN as either a mix of WP:TOP25 or Portal:Current events or something else, perhaps more visual, I would strongly encourage the editors to work this and prototype a few suggestions and bring it back to the group. I personally like the iOS version of the Wikipedia app's homepage. That app has a fundamental rethink of the homepage in a way that requires some element of grounds-up thinking. If editors have an appetite for that (i.e. redesigning the homepage with a reimagined WP:ITN), I would strongly encourage a spin-off working group to flesh the idea and bring it back to the group here.

Let's get working on these and always remember to WP:BEKIND! Cheers. Ktin (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Proposal I'd like to suggest that one way to improve civility and update the ITN box would be to create more specific significance requirements. I'd suggest the following, but with room for modification if editors would rather see something different:

1) If a story appears as a major headline on an approved news website outside of the countr(y/ies) where the story took place, then it passes on significance. We would need to generate a list of approved news websites, and we would want to make sure that said list of news websites has regional representation so that we don't end up with a America/Europe bias. We would need to be somewhat forgiving with the "major headline" requirement, since those can change frequently throughout the day; as long as it was a major headline at one point it's fine in my opinion, but editors are free to disagree with that.

2) If a story has an expected outcome occuring in the near future, then a blurb should be postponed until the expected outcome occurs. For example: rather than post that an election is occuring, we would post that an election has occurred and what the outcome was. This is already the policy of the editors who vote at ITN, but it isn't currently part of the official ITN criteria, so this would simply formalize that principle.

3) The event should merit its own Wikipedia article, according to the notability guidelines. This point might be obvious enough that it doesn't need to be a rule.

I'm not completely happy with these rules because it doesn't address how to judge science, art, awards, and some sport stories, as those rarely make world news headlines, but perhaps another editor can figure out a fourth rule to address that. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The first one cannot work because it will immediately favor Western sources, even if you make sure non-Western website are added. Any type of basis that is simply "has appeared on a news site" is a stumbling block. I'm all in favor of making sure that we don't dismiss stories that appear in non-tradition but high quality news sources in non-Western countries (including overcoming any foreign language aspect) and making sure editors don't dismiss such stories due to that reason (that has lead to civility problems), but we already have a problem with editors rushing to create articles on anything that looks like a news event that this would create a major problem. It would also lead to things we rather discourage, like gossip around the Depp/Heard case, to be considered for ITNC. We still need appropriate review and discrimination of what are actual appropriate news stories for the main page. Masem (t) 20:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe that significance as measured by placement in sources is an absolutely unsolvable. There will always be many more stories that meet this criteria than we can post. I think a workable solution would be to treat significance more as a binary (placement in numerous reputable sources) and focus debate on the quality/quantity of the recent improvement to the encyclopedia. This will help limit impacts of bias. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I definitely concur with this. The problem I have seen when weighing significance subjectively is that for a lot of stories, you will have equal parts of editors saying "this is newsworthy" versus those who say "this is not newsworthy". Because these votes essentially boil down to petitio principii, an admin is left simply weighing which side has more editors !voting in favor for or against posting based on newsworthiness. This runs totally contrary to how consensus is usually weighed on Wikipedia, which I think goes a long way towards explaining general editor frustration with how ITN/C is run, especially when editors flagrantly oppose ITN/R items based on significance. I think we ought to pick a standard and stick with it. WaltCip-(talk) 13:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Likewise. I mean, a mass shooting in the US (for example) with two or three deaths will be reported by BBC News, of course. But it doesn't make it encyclopedically significant by default. This overview would suggest that somewhere between 40 to 70 mass shootings per year would end up on ITN (because, believe me, the BBC or CBC or whoever, will continue to report these kinds of things, despite their lack of notability). We don't need this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• I think it would be more constructive if we separated the discussion on how to address incivility from the discussion on, well, everything else (national bias, minimum deaths, etc). I don't believe changing the notability requirements is step one in changing the types of behavior we see at ITN. I'll only be commenting on civility here.

I'm very late to this discussion, but that's partly because I don't check ITN/C nearly as often as I used to. I've been an on-and-off editor there for a while with occasional bursts of regular activity, but stopped for the very reasons why this thread exists in the first place. Civility (or more accurately, the lack of it) is a real problem with the culture that's formed at ITN. There's not many other corners of the encyclopedia where I can expect to receive nearly as many dismissive or vitriolic comments from other editors. I'm glad this issue is finally getting some attention.

I fully support little things like an "is your post keeping with civility guidelines of the project?" notice. We also need to give some teeth to the "Please do not..." bullet points under "Voicing an opinion on an item." It lists five behavioral issues (commenting things like "who?" or "meh", opposing items for only relating to a single country, accusing others of only supporting because of a US bias, not reading relevant articles before !voting, or !voting without regard for the criteria because you disagree with it) and yet I still see all of these from editors far too often. There needs to be some enforcement mechanism for this.

We need to make it easier to temporarily topic-ban editors from ITN when they routinely disregard behavioral guidelines and make ITN/C a worse place for editors to be. We need to have less tolerance for personal attacks, callousness, obscenities directed towards ITN as a whole (attacks that use the plural "you" instead of being directed at a single editor), and frequent, baseless accusations of bias (i.e., inserting a rant about bias in every !vote, derailing every conversation). We need to be willing to excise from the project editors who damage it by making others leave.

In short: have more reminders to nudge editors towards better behavior, but have clear guidelines clarifying that the appropriate response to editors routinely raising the temperature at ITN is an AN/I discussion resulting in a topic ban, temporary or indefinite. Let editors know that if they want to contribute to ITN/C, they can't foster an environment where other editors want to quit contributing.

Hoping something positive comes from this discussion before it gets stale and archived.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

^^ This, with bells on it. WaltCip-(talk) 12:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

+1. I'm also an "on and off" ITN participant, also because of civility issues. I've long felt that the best way to fight incivility is public opprobrium. If an editor is uncivil and is told, enough times by enough people, "Hey, that's not cool", most of the time they'll change, at least in my experience. I use two tactics: object to the incivility inline, with a reply to the uncivil comment (as I have done recently on this page); if that doesn't work, gather up some diffs and quotes of recent incivility and post them on the user's talk page with a request to stop. I'd encourage people to use these tactics and I'll try to do the same. Levivich^[block] 18:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)