Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 98

< Wikipedia talk:In the news
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Andrew Davidson in topic Heads up: Jimmy Carter
Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100→Archive 105

Verify status of NCAA Basketball for ITN/R

Latest comment: 1 year ago39 comments22 people in discussion

This is not necessarily a call to remove the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament from ITN/R, but given how the above discussions are trending, I'd like to know what makes this item different from the CFP (rejected) and the Boat Race (on its way to being removed) that it would automatically meet the significance standard each year when proposed for ITN/C. As explained above, it's an amateur sport limited mostly to universities and colleges in the United States. It's also not the top level of competition nationally, much less internationally. The argument that I frequently hear is that it has high international viewership, but I'd like to see some stats for this as well as a consensus that this meets our significance standards. If we are weighing consensus overall of what sorts of sporting items should be granted ITN/R status, then I think it's fair that we take a look at this as well.

Personally, I do think that we should trend more towards adding to ITN/R, rather than subtracting, in order to keep the ITN template fresh and frequently updated. I know others may feel differently, and consensus on ITN changes on a fairly regular basis, so let's discuss it (civilly, please). 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Why are we rehashing this? Just re-read the successful ITNR proposal here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Because that was six years ago, and consensus can change. In addition, a lot of the support rationales for that item cited The Boat Race as a reason. I just want to make sure we are all on the same page. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
In spite of the attempts to compare this to The Boat Race, they are not the same other than being amateur competitions. And there's no reason to not post something because it's amateur. March Madness remains one of the biggest sporting events in the U.S. and should remain ITNR as it was gaining consensus in the years prior to being added to ITNR and likely still will without it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Some stats:
Goal [1], citing Playersbio.com [2] (Goal only republished 1-10, see Playersbio for 11-15); a nearly-identical list is published at Roadtrips.com:
  1. Tour de France - 3.5 billion viewers
  2. Soccer World Cup - 3.3B
  3. Cricket World Cup - 2.6B
  4. Summer Games - 2B (how the heck is Summer Olympic Games not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that title???)
  5. Winter Games Winter Olympic Games - 2B (we have an Olympics primary topic problem here)
  6. Women's World Cup - 1.12B (that's the FIFA Women's World Cup, oy)
  7. Boxing - 1B
  8. UEFA Champions League - 380M
  9. Super Bowl - 96.4M
  10. NCAA Final Four - 16.9M
  11. NBA Finals - 16.54M
  12. Kentucky Derby - 14.5M
  13. World Series - 14.35M
  14. World Cup of Rugby - 12.8M (Rugby League World Cup)
  15. The Masters - 9.45M
Bleacher Report [3]:
  1. FIFA World Cup
  2. Olympic Games
  3. 24 Hours of Le Mans
  4. Super Bowl
  5. Grand National
  6. The Masters
  7. Polo at Palermo
  8. Wimbleton
  9. Kentucky Derby
  10. NBA Finals
  11. Cricket World Cup
  12. World Series
  13. Tour de France
  14. March Madness
  15. UEFA Champions League Final
  16. Ryder Cup
  17. BCS National Championship Game
  18. Daytona 500
  19. Rugby World Cup
  20. Boston Marathon
  21. The Open Championship
  22. Indianapolis 500
  23. Stanley Cup Finals
  24. Monaco Grand Prix
  25. The Rose Bowl
Top5.com (dunno if this is an RS):
  1. FIFA World Cup
  2. Summer Olympics
  3. Cricket World Cup
  4. Super Bowl
  5. Monaco Grand Prix
  6. Tour de France
  7. Giro d'Italia
  8. UEFA Champions League
  9. FIFA Confederations Cup
  10. Rugby World Cup
  11. Asian Games
  12. Winter Olympics
  13. NBA Finals
  14. World Series
  15. NCAA Final Four
Note that rowing, sailing, darts, snooker, and sports like that, don't even make these lists, but NCAA does, and it's right up there with the NBA. Levivich (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Useful metrics-based analysis that I also noticed when doing some searching about relative popularity. Basketball is an international sport so that alone means the audience is much more expansive, so this should not surprise us. The NCAA basketball tournament is also much more inclusive with a bracket of 68 teams, and the "Final Four" easily make it into the top ranks of watched sports events, even if the sites (Playersbio.com, Roadtrips, Goal) are not an iron clad WP:RS. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
It's not technically a sporting event and India isn't technically an English-speaking country, but for semicompleteness' sake, WrestleMania 38 had 56 millionish viewers in India. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove in light of the Boat Race removal. Outside of Olympics and other international organized events that may include amateurs alongside professionals, the Boat Race !vote made it clear we should not be including amateur events. And it doesn't matter how large the viewership is or how many views the article gets, we aren't at all worried about the number of hits a topic gets, but making sure we cover a good broad range of topics. We already have other professional basketball events, so we certainly don't need an amateur one. --Masem (t) 02:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
    Are you also going to change your !vote at #Remove The Boat Race from ITN/R to now remove the Boat Race? —Bagumba (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove. For the same reasons I have consistently opposed university sporting events for the last decade. These are not the highest level of basketball, have very restricted eligibility, are amateur-level in a sport with many professional leagues, and just because they get a high TV audience doesn't mean they're of encyclopaedic importance (we don't post reality TV shows, for example). Modest Genius talk 14:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Wildly popular event, despite amateur status; unlike the Boat Race, it's an open tournament. Effort to remove here seems to be pure whataboutism from supporters of the Boat Race. The Kip (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep ITN/R The notability, both in terms of viewership and media coverage, is clearly there. Even non-sports publications post about every aspect of the tournament- not just the final, not just the semifinals, not just the round of 64, but who's going to get into the tournament in the first place. Every news outlet in America, and plenty from other nations, goes in-depth on the tourney, whether it's the Cinderella teams or the tens of millions of fantasy brackets or how tournament performance will affect NBA Draft stock or whatever. The primary factor behind ITN/R is what is deemed as important every time it happens, and without question, that applies here. -- Kicking222 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I've always opposed adding college football, but been quite an advocate of basketball inclusion. Not shot-totals, but college basketball seems good to me. Basketball is one of the most popular sports globally, I think it's third behind football and cricket, or somewhere up there. That makes it much easier to justify having an amateur competition in ITN/R. As far as the merits of college basketball go, you can watch it (last I tried) on free-to-air TV across Europe, so while other basketball tournaments - for European nations or in the US - are restricted in viewership, college basketball and its popularity are widespread. That's what I see as the reason it's included. Not going to !vote either way, but I very much understand why it would be our choice. Kingsif (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Elections on ITNR (was: Admin decision needed for Monaco blurb)

Latest comment: 1 year ago53 comments13 people in discussion

The Monaco election blurb rolls off the page at EoD. Curbon7 (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a discussion about Monaco going on at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Another_UFO_shot_down. Can we move that here? I do agree with User:Andrew Davidson's points on Monaco. Do elections in microstates really deserve a guaranteed ITN slot? Even an island nation like Cyprus has nearly 100 times the voter turnout as in Monaco. Zagalejo (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a very firm consensus that the general elections of every country on List of sovereign states is considered ITNR. To legislate which countries are and are not deserving is a very slippery slope whose goalposts are constantly moving. Curbon7 (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, that UFO venue will be closing soon, so this Talk Page is the best place to discuss abolishing ITNR elections (new section, preferably, maybe formal RfC). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The issue of which elections should be on ITNR has been considered many times. The following list of relevant discussions is extensive but I am not certain it is comprehensive as I only looked at the first 4 pages of results when searching the archives for "Elections". I suggest reading at least some of them before making any proposals.
  • The long list of previous discussions demonstrates a lack of consensus for such elections as the issue wouldn't keep coming up if there was an actual consensus. The only reason that they persist is the added inertia which ITN/R gives a topic – you need a consensus to remove it and so it persists even if there's a lack of consensus. See the Boat Race, for example.
So, how did this inertia get established in the first place? I was looking at this recently and it's not a pretty sight. It was back in 2008 that WP:ITNSPORTS was established specifically as a list of sports which would be given special privilege at ITN. A few other types of story were then added as a casual afterthought and that's how the elections got their special status too. The principal architect, BanyanTree, openly said that this would establish a systemic bias but was fine with this - "systemic bias is a given". The page was then retitled as WP:ITN/R to hide its origin as a long list of sports events.
This was done as a local consensus by a handful of ITN insiders – there was no wider community discussion. As a political analogy, this was like the old UK system of rotten boroughs. And, for a sporting analogy, we now don't have a level playing field. Topics which got special seats are fast-tracked on to the main page. Anything else struggles to be heard.
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
That's a nice theory, but I can tell you haven't actually read the discussions linked to because it doesn't reflect reality. Yes, INTR originated as sports but there was consensus to add other events, including all elections, and it was renamed not to "hide" anything but to reflect that it wasn't just a list of sporting events.
Most of the no consensuses above are not a lack of consensus for the status quo, as you claim, but majority support for the status quo. Back in 2012 there was majority feeling that some elections should not be ITNR but almost nobody who supported that agreed with anybody else who supported that what the smaller set should be. Since then removing all elections, setting a population threshold, excluding authoritarian regimes and excluding "decorative" elections have all been strongly opposed. In one year (I forget which) it was pointed out that our article about elections in Andorra was read by more people than our article about elections in Indonesia, despite Indonesia being massively larger and more important by pretty much every measurement.
You are of course free to make a new proposal, but unless you actually read the previous ones and see why they failed then it will be pointless. You have been very vocal over many years about your dislike of how ITN is set up, but there is no cabal of insiders, it's just that consensus does not agree with you. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 
It's not a theory. I read the original discussion which is the first in the list above. In this, the OP makes a suggestion. Just three other editors comment, raising various points. The discussion then peters out with no formal close or anything resembling an RfC. That's not consensus. It's classic Vogon tactics. "Resistance is useless!". Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
You appear to be unfamiliar with the way Wikipedia works, both at present and especially over a decade ago. You also ignore that there have been many subsequent discussions involving far more people not a single one of which has achieved any consensus to change the status quo (indeed most of them have endorsed it). You have been a regular on this page for many years, indeed longer than probably most people in this discussion, you've been told the same things over and over again. It's time to start listening. If you fail to either put up (make concrete proposals for the change you desire to see, and then get consensus for them) or shut up (stop complaining that people disagree with you) then it is only a matter of time until you get topic banned for wasting editors time. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Build a better mousetrap. Propose actual substantial changes and get consensus for them, or stop complaining. It is wearisome to read your snide and unhelpful commentary again and again. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
If you truly oppose sports, small countries, and other "irrelevant" events being posted on ITNR, open a discussion to get them removed; otherwise, your consistent complaining just looks like that: complaining. The Kip (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm really curious as to where you think the bar should be set. Exclude microstates like San Marino? Minor states like Fiji or Albania? Or just exclude anyone who isn't G20? This is the issue, the bar would be completely arbitrarily set. Not having a bar at all would only instigate constant fighting. Curbon7 (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Limiting election results to G20 countries only was one of the options in at least one proposal linked above (I think it was the 2012 one). From memory it was one of the lesser-supported suggestions even among those in favour of some sort of bar. Thryduulf (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
"However, any attempts to draw an arbitrary line are doomed to fail as there is no one set of nations that consensus can reach. Elections in a country that are important to a set of users may be seen as irrelevant to another. For this reason simply setting the bar as "G20 nations" will not work". Excellent words in that close; I hope that even though they are no longer around, Strange Passerby knows their words still ring true exactly 11 years later. Curbon7 (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
The bar is already arbitrarily set. We include states like Abkhazia, Niue, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia, and Transnistria, but exclude states like California, that have more independence, more active, and more influential on the world state.
In three months Niue, a country of 2000 people that shares citizenship and a head of state with New Zealand, will hold its next election. Under the current rules we will have to post it; I think we need to change the rules. BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
"Under the current rules we will have to post it". Nope, we only post if it's a) nominated, and b) of sufficient quality. Can you link to where Abkhazia, Niue, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia, and Transnistria elections were previously posted? Stephen 04:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Nope, we only post if it's a) nominated, and b) of sufficient quality. Both of which are very low barriers to posting; I think my statement was accurate.
Can you link to where Abkhazia, Niue, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia, and Transnistria elections were previously posted? No, but I can check if relevant - would it change your opinion if they have been posted? BilledMammal (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Let's do that thing you were talking about earlier, trusting the majority opinion of 21 international reliable sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll open a discussion at VPI. BilledMammal (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Cool, I'll inform the others this is the thing I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
We cannot use appearance majority in international RS because that will immediately enforce the systematic bias related to Western/English topics. We want ITN to cover a broad range of topics so allowing nearly all national-level elections helps to combat that. Masem (t) 04:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I want ITN to cover what's in the global English news, not combat it and pretend something "exotic" is in the news instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
But we are not a newspaper, nor is ITN a news ticker, which you are now effectively describing. We feature articles that happen to be of good quality and in the news, not repeat what the news is saying. That's the function of Wikinews. Masem (t) 13:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Is Monaco's new president in the news? No. Is her article a stub? Yes. Does bolding a slightlly longer related article that also barely blipped in the news make up for posting a stub about a person only a few thousand people have any reason to care about? You tell me, Masem. You tell me. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
That systematic bias already exists with topics popular in the west are far more likely to be posted; switching to a metric of coverage in a majority of selected internal sources would likely reduce that bias, as those sources cover topics that we don't notice or reject.
I don't have a list, and don't intend to create one prior to opening a discussion, but looking through WP:RSP Agence France-Presse, Reuters, Times of India, Associated Press, Deutsche Welle, BBC, The Hindu, and New York Times would almost certainly be included, and The Guardian, Al Jazeera English, Mail & Guardian, Haaretz, The Straits Times, South China Morning Post, Der Spiegel, and The Globe and Mail would also be reasonable options. BilledMammal (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
The bar is every listing on List of sovereign states, of which N. Cyprus, Transnistria, etc. are members of. RE: "I think we need to change the rules"; you are entitled to your opinion, of course, but Thryduulf posted a dozen or so links where this is repeatedly shot down. Curbon7 (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
And that bar is as arbitrary as every UN member, every G20 member, every sovereign state that isn't a microstate, every sovereign state with a population over 10 million, or any other metric we could come up with.
Justifying the current definition on the grounds that a different bar would be arbitrary is flawed, because the current bar is arbitrary. BilledMammal (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I understand your point. However, the follow-up question is inevitably: And so your suggestion is? Curbon7 (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Coverage in a majority of 21 select reliable international news sources; we delegate the responsibility for deciding if an event is significant enough for ITN to reliable sources, rather than relying on personal opinion and original research. BilledMammal (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
At which point we effectively fall into west-centrism, as the majority of heavily-covered elections would be in western states, with probably exceptions for a handful of other large states. RSes don't typically care all that much about elections in, say, East Timor, Botswana, or Kygrzstan.
We use the current guidelines because they appeal to the most people. The Kip (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
East Timor and Botswana are small states, Kygrzstan is an authoritarian regime. The majority of heavily-covered elections are in larger democratic states; looking at smaller western states like Iceland and Estonia they also appear to lack coverage.
We're are also not here to right great wrongs; if reliable sources neglect a topic we cannot decide that the sources are wrong, per WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. BilledMammal (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Fighting systematic bias is not a RGW issue, that's a fundamental editing goal to prevent the encyclopedia to be too imbalanced towards western and English topics. (while an essay, WP:BIAS makes thee points). Its one thing to say that a topic got nearly no media coverage to a point where notability fails, but its another thing to say that a topic got nearly no media coverage in the usual suspects but was well covered in reputable local sources, which would be the case for these smaller-state elections. Masem (t) 13:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Fighting systematic bias that originates from within Wikipedia is not a RGW issue; fighting systematic bias that originates from outside it is - although I don't believe that reduced coverage in media for national elections in small or undemocratic states is a systematic bias issue.
WP:UNDUE applies to all mainspace pages, including the main page, and requires us to give appropriate weight to each topic based on the prominence of the topic in reliable sources - posting topics on ITN that are only covered in local papers violates this. BilledMammal (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE applies to the significance applied to viewpoints that support perspectives, not to the coverage of encyclopedic topics. Moreover, see WP:NPOVFAQ and particularly the clause regarding Anglophone systemic bias: The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries (bolded mine). Blind and inapplicable adherence to WP:UNDUE ignores the fact that we MUST avoid systemic bias on Wikipedia from failure to disclose significant events. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment It's ITNR. Until/unless that changes we will continue to post results from any sovereign country that bothers to hold elections. (Subject to article quality.) If you want to propose a change to ITNR, by all means do so. FWIW, I would oppose any change that discriminates against smaller countries. For now I believe this discussion has run its useful course and suggest it be closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
    There was a change proposed. We'd remove elections from ITN/R, then only post the ones that receive significant coverage in the majority of a to-be-determined odd number of reliable sources from across the known world. You can resist that change, but don't say you weren't informed. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
    @InedibleHulk Where is this proposal and discussion taking place? I must have missed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
    A few blocks above, suggested by BilledMammal. Here's a link of me linking to it. I thought that would make it apparent, but apparently not. He wasn't kidding about the Village Pump, either. There's some commotion on the Ideas subpage. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
All your links seem to be links to diffs. Where is the actual discussion? Is it in this section? Because if so, I oppose the changes proposed here, and suggest that anyone wanting them discussed starts a new section with a more clearly defined proposal. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
That's not a proposal, it's one person expressing an opinion in a discussion that veered into being tangentially-related (#Food for thought - considering of importance/direness of existing blurbs). I don't know why anybody would think a discussion at the ideas VP (which is explicitly not for proposals but "a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Wikipedia issues can be incubated") would either be a proposal or a relevant place to discuss proposals for in the news (given the existence of this page) but the discussion @InedibleHulk doesn't seem to want you to easily find is at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#In the news criteria. From skim-reading it, it mostly seems to be the usual suspects who disagree with ITN not being a news ticker being told that ITN is not a news ticker. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I do think there is an issue with how InedibleHulk uses ITN, but I am not sure how best to raise it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
My Talk Page, a ping, drop it here till I see it...I'm flexible. So what's the problem? I didn't say it was a formal proposal, a proper proposal or any other sort, just that a change was proposed. You all know what it is now, sorry I didn't point it out directly enough for some (and yes, it's still in this section, a few more blocks above now). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
If you're still listening or if I'm just raising/lodging this gripe for the record, I was shocked and appalled to see you ascribing nefarious motives to my character here. Yes, I'll use cliches till the cows come home, and if you want to groan about them, "be my guest". But I am not a thought terminator. Even when I'm an asshole, I'm a provocative asshole, expressly deployed to make people think of things they aren't already thinking. I've never closed down a discussion, no matter how exactly a candidate seemed to have "a snowball's chance in Hell", or reported a fellow editor to the chopping block for using a phrase I don't like. Free speech is very important to me, regardless of how often it makes people confuse me with a neckbearded Republican NASCAR fan and all the connotations that come with it. Fuck that noise, honestly! I believe kindness is magic, despite also not identifying as a brony. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with a brony or country music loving gun nut, either. Every living being is a person to me and there's a certain sadness to death overall, but news is an entirely different matter, where the most powerful goddamned networks in the whole godless universe do guide our perceptions and reactions, like it or not. Anyway, Hulk Rant over, peace out! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
On the one hand, life is short, and dealing with assholes is tiring. So yes, I do find !votes of 'old man dies' tedious and unconstructive, for example. But I agree that you don't intentionally close down discussions, and when I did what I should have done in the first place, and read the Thought-terminating cliché page, I discover that it's a term used specifically when the effect is intentional, which isn't what I meant. My intent, which I would have been better not to be so clever about, was simply to say that the bus plunge concept - which nobody here is responsible for - is itself an expression of editorial bias. (An obsolete one, as none of us is working on an American regional newspaper in the days before the internet.) I still don't like it, but it's not like you originated it, and I used entirely the wrong term to characterise its use. I apologise. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Accepted, thank you. I had no idea that phrase was so notable, assumed you made it up. Maybe it's just my hatred of killer robots, but it "triggered" me. Sorry for using "shocked and appalled", that was a bit "catty", it wasn't really that bad. And yeah, I can see how "Old Man Dies" might feel abrasive, but I swear it's not pejorative, just descriptive. We all get old and we all die sometime, even famous people, even women. I feel it has been a slightly constructive slogan, taken up by others in the broadly noble pursuit of not placing certain icons on pedestals just because The System says they're legends. I am no fan of The System, rather a huge System of a Down fan, but in my capacity as a semifunctional Wikipedian veteran, I have a duty to follow the sources and go with what's verifiable and true. I try to maintain a NPOV in that regard, but like aging and death, bias is a creeping inevitability of our shared and tired human condition. On the bright side, February is almost over, cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


(Closed) Remove The Boat Race from ITN/R

Latest comment: 1 year ago128 comments48 people in discussion
REMOVED. (NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Closing as discussion has been stale for a while. Consensus for removing, removed on 21:45, 21 February 2023‎ (UTC) by User: GreatCaesarsGhost. Natg 19 (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

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.

All of the arguments that are used against including the College Football Championship apply to the Boat Race between Oxford and Cambridge. It is an amateur event, it is a student sporting competition, a minority sport, only open to an even narrower range of athletes, it is not particularly important, college sporting events are not terribly significant, it is of no significance. Beyond that, the coverage the Boat Race pales in comparison to coverage of the CFP worldwide. For example, the NYTimes hasnt even mentioned it in the last several years, neither has ABC Australia, or CBC Canada. There is no grounds for inclusion when events that much more widely covered, much more open in their participation (the schools that participate in the boat race have some 46k students enrolled, the teams in just the playoffs, not to mention all the other D1 schools that are qualified for it have an enrollment of around 120k), and much bigger revenue (from a quick google search, the Boat Race has revenue around 16 million USD, just in TV rights alone the CFP pulls in 470 million and rising). Since the arguments used to suppress mention of what is inarguably a larger in all aspects story apply equally to this niche sport among two and only two universities in one country, the Boat Race should be removed from ITN/R. nableezy - 14:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Remove - as proposer. nableezy - 14:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • No opinion yet, but I'd like to remind everyone that a subject like the Boat Race or college football can still get an annual blurb, even if they're not on ITN/R, if their article is of sufficient quality. Removal of ITN/R would not (necessarily) mean that we'll never blurb the Boat Race again, just that it won't automatically pass. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Pinging The Rambling Man since he regularly nominates and updates the articles surrounding the Boat Race (all of which have been FA's) so he would likely be interested to know that this discussion is occurring. That said, oppose - this is an apples-to-oranges comparison.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose one of the most famous and important amateur events in the world. It's very much in the news when it happens. Seems a bit WP:POINTY to me. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    How is it famous or important when it lacks the coverage that events that are rejected for lack of importance or fame? And no, not pointy, asking for a consistency besides "Four legs good, two legs bad" or "English good, American bad". If, as is argued at ITN, that college sports are unworthy of ITN, much less being ITN/R, then that should apply uniformly, and not carve out a special exception for a special sport on a special island. nableezy - 14:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    Weird, rowing is a global sport. The Boat Race features rowers from around the world. The Boat Race is broadcast globally. This is a weird take. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is generally always posted every year, I see no reason to remove it from the list. ITNR is merely a list of articles we post every year already, and The Boat Race qualifies. Other arbitrary metrics are not really relevant to such a discussion, merely "do we, based on past performance, expect this to be posted every year as long as the quality is up-to-snuff". Based on past performance, The Boat Race has never failed to make the main page, as long as quality is fine. --Jayron32 14:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    Is there a way to test this argument? How do we know if an ITN/R item should no longer be ITN/R? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    In my opinion, ITN/R items should be nominated for removal if:
    • The item has failed to be nominated for its last two or three occurrences, indicating a lack of interest in maintaining the item on ITN (barring some truly exceptional circumstances), or
    • Even more rarely, there is an overwhelming consensus not to post the item on ITN/C once nominated, specifically because its exclusion from ITN would best serve Wikipedia's interests.
    That's what I tend to see as historically being the key motivators for removal, and I think it keeps the process sufficiently removed from WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT voting. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    Here is how to get an item removed from WP:ITNR: 1) Nominate it for removal from the list 2) See if there is consensus that it doesn't belong on the list. I kinda thought that was exactly what we are doing here, but maybe I'm confused and not you... --Jayron32 15:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    I think Maplestrip is saying that your argument that "items on ITNR should be kept if they're posted at ITNC" is circular because items at ITNC are posted because they're on ITNR. Iff this is correct then the only way items could be removed from ITNR is if they are not nominated or if the quality is regularly not good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, exactly that. You say it as though you were not expecting it to be true? I mean, we still do need to have the discussion, and see where consensus lies. My rationale for keeping it on the list is "It gets posted easily every year". Perhaps other people have different rationales. If we didn't expect them to, then there would be no need for a discussion, n'est ce pas? I certainly am not so presumptuous to think that my way is the only way a person could think about the issue. If anyone believe that, why would we even have discussions; if there was only one possible perspective, and nothing else were ever possible, there would never be a need to discuss everything, it would all be pre-decided. My belief is that we should not remove this item because we have no evidence that it doesn't get posted all of the time. My belief is not that anyone else cannot be allowed to have different beliefs. --Jayron32 16:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    Thryduulf understood my concern correctly. If we follow Jayron's logic, currently, the only way the Boat Race could be removed from the list is if editors stop writing good articles about it. However, ITN/R should not be related to article quality at all. Imagine if E3 was still in ITN/R because one editor put the work in every year. Surely, nominating such an item for removal here would be the correct way to get it removed? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
    No, if we follow my logic, the way we get the Boat Race removed from the list is to have a consensus of editors who think that it doesn't belong on the list. As I just said in the comment you are responding to, and also in my comment dated 15:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC), I have no expectation that anyone should or should not agree with me. I have a belief and a rationale for that belief. Maybe there will be consensus that aligns with my belief. Maybe there will be a consensus in the other direction. The point of having the discussion is not to validate ones own beliefs or to invalidate the beliefs of those who think differently, it's to assess consensus. I hold no requirement that my belief will be the consensus. As I stated above, discussions are necessary because I am not so presumptuous to think that because I have a belief, everyone must agree with me. --Jayron32 17:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove. An amateur student event which has all the same problems as the US college sports. I have consistently opposed posting the Oxbridge boat race in ITN for over a decade. The race is not the top level of rowing - that is the Olympic Games (though we could maybe consider adding the World Rowing Championships as well). The TV audience isn't particularly large either. It's a relic of the British class system and barely registers with anyone except graduates of those two institutions. Modest Genius talk 14:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose while it is an amateur level event it is also the top level event for rowing (short of the Olympic rowing events). Add that the article for the race is nearly always well above quality requirements within a few hours after the race. --Masem (t) 15:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove This has been controversial for years. There's a demonstrated lack of consensus (in the real world sense of the term, not the insular Wikipedia sense.) Zagalejo (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    1) Please point to these real-world discussions that demonstrate a lack of consensus about whether Wikipedia should post The Boat Race to ITN. 2) Please explain how and why a consensus anywhere other than this page or WP:ITNC (or at WT:ITNR before it was merged here) is relevant. 3) Please explain why Wikipedia's definition of consensus is not relevant to discussions internal to Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    Wikipedia's definition of consensus typically means that the loudest and most persistent voices get their way. Anyway, the Boat Race has been questioned on this talk page repeatedly, with discussions going back to at least 2015. (Check the archive.) Zagalejo (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    That doesn't answer any of the questions asked. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    Most of your questions don't relate to my main point. I was just trying to say that there has been historical disagreement within Wikipedia about the Boat Race. The original 2014 ITNR nomination was closed as having reached a consensus, but when I look at that discussion, I think User:Howard the Duck made some convincing points that no one adequately addressed. Zagalejo (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    And note that the original nomination was quite acrimonious: [6]. Let's not pretend it sailed through with unanimous support. Zagalejo (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    Consensus doesn't require unanimous support, but that is also irrelevant to the questions asked. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Leaning Oppose, because ... if we're starting a nomination with "All of the arguments that are used against including the College Football Championship apply to the Boat Race", then one could argue that all of those arguments apply to the NCAA basketball as well. I'm also a little wary that we would have no rowing events at all which are ITN/R. Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    Perhaps World Rowing Championships? — xaosflux Talk 20:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) That's why I mentioned the World Rowing Championship, though unfortunately it appears the yearly articles are just masses of tables. Modest Genius talk 20:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose last few years has been Covid, right? Odd time to start making comparisons for coverage. One race was cancelled, another held behind closed doors. As far as I can tell, this is a good-faith proposal, but it totally misses the mark as usual. We go through this every couple of years. It's remarkable to me that some individuals don't want to feature ITN sports events with multi-national athletes (often up to World/Olympic standard) whose article is normally up to GA status at least by the time it's nominated. But life is far too short and too precious to get worked up about it. If this goes, so should any other amateur contest such as NCAA. As an aside, reducing ITN/R items just makes the process more stagnant than it already is. Bravo. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    For the record, the searches posted above go to 2019. That is the time before Covid for those keeping track. nableezy - 23:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Personally, I don't see the boat race or the College Football Championship as being amateur events, but we have no rule restricting events to professional sports. Yes, the argument that "items on ITNR should be kept if they're posted at ITNC" is circular, but so is Wikipedia:Non-free content. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Do y'all have to do this to The Rambling Man so frequently? Can we just agree to give it a decade before the next one of these discussions? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    I think people just want consistent standards for what sports events can get featured. If we're going to shut down discussions about college football, then that raises questions about sports events that seem to have a similar level of importance. Zagalejo (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
    There are different dimensions upon which consistency is built. I think you may be taking too narrow a view of what is being consistently applied here. I can always pick some measure upon which any decision looks "inconsistent". If you're seeing an inconsistency, maybe your assessing the wrong thing... --Jayron32 12:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Weakremove. On the one hand, the articles are of high quality, and there is evidence it is one of the highest levels in the sport. However, in addition to it being a student competition, it's a competition whose teams are selected beforehand. It isn't a national championship like NCAA basketball. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
    Amending; no longer hesitant, removal is appropriate. I don't believe an event being at the pinnacle of a given sport is enough; it needs to be an event of significance in general, and TBR's status as a race between two colleges (no matter how many scholarship hijinks occur to include non-students) makes it of fundamentally small scope. In the same spirit, I would probably support the removal of darts, or other sports with limited attention. On reading the current list, it blows my mind that we're featuring rowing and darts, but not field hockey, badminton, or ping-pong (all of which have considerable viewership in east and south asia), let alone more locally popular sports. When we're not listing the highest level professional tournaments for those sports at ITN/R, it doesn't make sense to me to include this amateur event. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove per Modest Genius and Vanamonde. I fail to see anything in reading up on this event that demonstrates its importance even within the context of rowing, much less sports and society as a whole. In particular I stand with Vanamonde's argument about the composition of the event. Why honestly do we care about a competition between two colleges? DarkSide830 (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
You clearly don't know the difference between a college and a university is in this context. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, a clearly unknowledgeable comment. These are two of the oldest universities in the world. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
...each of which has over 30 colleges within them. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
None of which get to advance through any kind of season or playoff system that would make this arcane rivalry a bit more sportsmanlike and fair. Also, it's perfectly acceptable for an American to call a university a college, TV says so. You're only an idiot, in context, if you call a college a university. Deal with it! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can't find a single compelling argument that this should be removed. In this case, there's something called 'tradition' and 'historical significance'. The race has been in existence for almost 200 years and pre-dates the Olympics and the World Rowing Championships (moreover, it's one of the oldest continuously held competitions in modern sport history). At that time, no distinction was made between professional and amateur sports, so it's silly to call it an amateur event because, unlike many other amateur competitions, it was not inaugurated as a secondary league alongside the top-flight competition. Finally, the viewership has never been a decisive criterion to rate ITN-worthiness of events, so the fact that other events have higher viewership doesn't make a strong argument for removal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
    The distinction between amateur and professional was indeed of minor importance in the 1800s, but it isn't now. There are many professional rowers, who qualify for international competitions based on merit, where they compete for Olympic medals, world championships, and prize money. None of that happens in the Oxbridge race, which is only open to current students at two universities, who are guaranteed a spot every year. It is not the top level of competition in the sport of rowing. I agree that the event is historic, but that isn't one of the ITN criteria. So is the The Varsity Polo Match, but no-one thinks that should be on ITNR. Modest Genius talk 14:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
    That is not the case in the 21st century. Look at the team rosters. The teams are composed of Olympic athletes from around the world, nominally students on sports scholarships. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
    That's...utterly bizarre, but is actually making me think further on the importance, so thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. Banedon (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
    Nice to see you again Banedon. Always adding value. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove, not a top-level event, receiving little attention outside its country (treated more as a somewhat quirky or venerable tradition, like the Pamplona bull runs, the Siena horse race, ... but not really as a sporting event). That the article about it are top quality is good, they can be DYKs when they reach GA or grace the front page as FAs when they reach that status, but that isn't an argument to keep them in ITNr (nor, obviously, one to remove them). Fram (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Remove While this is a historical event that attracts decent attention within its country, I can't ignore the issues surrounding it that warrant its removal from ITN/R. This is an ameteur event between two universities, meaning the participants are set each year unlike other sports where teams have to compete for spots. This is not the top-level for rowing either. World Rowing Championships would be a more appropriate feature for rowing. It is hypocritical to feature an ameteur event between two universities while other ameteur events between other univerisites that attract a much wider audience and do not have set participants are not featured. NoahTalk 16:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I would think that if the goal is to feature more articles on ITN that readers may be interested in, particularly those that are Featured Articles or Good Articles, the answer to that is not to continue to pull events out of ITN/R just because some other item didn't gain traction. All this is going to lead to is, as The Rambling Man said, ITN becoming barren and uninteresting. It's better for the long-term health of ITN to focus our collective efforts on adding rather than subtracting, instead of cutting off our noses to spite our faces, which in my mind is the real hypocrisy here. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
ITN doesn't become "barren and uninteresting" by removing one sporting event from ITNR: sports is one of the most common ITN items anyway, and being removed from ITNR doesn't mean that it can't be proposed at ITN anyway, it's just that it won't get an automatic pass. By the way, all this talk about GA and FA is actually wrong, at the time of the appearance of the 2022 Boat Race on ITN it was neither a GA nor a FA (would be hard to do that with a just-finished event of course). Fram (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The significance of the event doesn't change from year to year. It doesn't seem productive to force everyone to have an annual discussion over its merits as an event when we could just do it here, once, and then focus on the quality at each year's nom. That's kind of the point of ITN/R. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Gets posted every year as the article is always of high quality, is of historic importance, rowing is a global sport, and it is a high level competition. The athletes who compete in it are always of Olympic standard, so it's silly to think of it as merely an "amateur" competition between university students. I also generally support the posting of the college football championship, although that shouldn't really be relevant to this discussion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
    Part of holding oneself to an Olympic standard is testing one's mettle against the best in the world, not just the best Oxford has this year. Or Cambridge, if you're one of the few who get into Oxford. Neither could whoop Nipissing, that's all I know. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove amateur event that literally can only have one of two possible winners. How is "Cambridge this year" really worth spending valuable space on every year unquestioningly, no matter how boring and predictable and unsurprising the actual race or outcome was? Valereee (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove per the way this feels it will go from here. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
    This makes no sense, but why am I not surprised by the "pile-on hate for TRM" brigade clearly gathering here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    It makes sense if you're Canadian. You clearly never will be, either. But I don't hate you for it. I blame your overall ancient national education system for suggesting one boat race is inherently bigger just for recurring than the relatively stacked WrestleManias which I'm routinely fine not getting my way about. Cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove Agree entirely with the complaints about circular reasoning above. If an item is on ITN/R, then !voters are not allowed to oppose an item at ITN/C over significance. And if we can't hold a removal discussion on a ITN/R item solely based on significance, then it means that as long as a small group of passionate people are willing to update the article quickly every year, there is literally no way to remove it from ITN/R even if consensus changes. I have long felt that our "In the news" section has strayed too far from what a layperson would imagine it containing; undue emphasis on quality (I admit the Boat Race articles are all quite good) at the cost of newsworthiness. I see no reason why we should be ashamed to compare the relative importance of different topics; there is finite space in the ITN section and what we choose to highlight says a lot about us. We can have an overall lower bar for significance where the Boat Race, College Football Playoff, major sub-national elections, etc. are all posted, or a higher bar where none of these are posted. I just don't see how this is globally more significant than the CFP or the election of the mayor of London or NYC (which actually impacts a lot of people's lives). "Historic importance" might be a good argument to include something in "On this day", which is actually about history; "In the news" is not that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Procedural note - Given the potential outcomes for this discussion, it's worth noting that there was another discussion held back in September of last year which tried to determine whether an ITN/R removal discussion that ends in no consensus should default to a "delete". Ironically, I don't think that discussion ever came to a consensus either. But the points brought up might be relevant here.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    That doesn't sound right. No consensus always means "retain the status quo", so in this case that would mean the boat race continuing to be ITN/R. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    Indeed. A local consensus on this talk page cannot override how consensus works on Wikipedia. If an uninvolved closer judges this discussion as "remove", then it gets removed. Otherwise, it stays.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The onus for consensus falls on those seeking inclusion, see WP:ONUS. That surely applies to the main page. ITN/R has become a way for vested contributors to skip past the requirement of gaining consensus for material to put on literally the main page. The Boat Race wouldnt get consensus on ITN/C right now just based on this discussion, but through these things like claiming a consensus of 4 editors on some page six years ago forever grants them real estate on the main page it sticks. nableezy - 14:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't say so. WP:ONUS is a function of article text alone. It's a very very very important practice for deciding content of articles, but I see nowhere that it necessarily applies to things like "Whether or not the Boat Race should or should not have its results posted at ITN". Surely that's a matter for discussion and not over-reaching a policy that doesn't apply. --Jayron32 14:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
But ITN/R exists to bypass consensus on ITN/C. And ONUS is about including disputed content, how could a random article have that enforced and not the main page? If there is not a consensus for it then it should not be retained. In fact, Amakuru, that was your position in that discussion. Whats changed? nableezy - 14:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@Nableezy: I guess if you analyze my comment in September vs my comment today, you'll get a no consensus outcome... How apt. 😏  — Amakuru (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
lol, but which way preavils then? nableezy - 17:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
ITN/R does NOT exist to bypass consensus. It is a summary of previous consensus. And an ITN blurb is not "article content". --Jayron32 14:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Of course it exists to bypass consensus on ITN/C, thats why ITN/R items are not subject to the consensus of ITN/C. The discussion that added the Boat Race had 5 people supporting. But that makes it so this forever is on the main page. And where exactly does WP:ONUS specify it is about article content? The Main Page is in the mainspace (Main Page is not in project space, talk space or any other subspace), and all material in the mainspace is subject to WP:V, which ONUS is a part of. But forget the policy, who cares. How is it reasonable to insist that an item be on the main page when it lacks consensus for its inclusion? Because 6 years ago 5 people agreed? When now considerably more than that disagree? How does that make any sense? nableezy - 14:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
where exactly does WP:ONUS specify it is about article content? I would say the part that states While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. (My emphasis). But if we were to extend the scope of ONUS, then what about WP:NOCONSENSUS, which states When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
So your position is that WP:V does not apply to the main page? Nothing about ITN/R is common, 5 users from 8 years ago trumping a discussion five times the size now is not common. nableezy - 14:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
No, my position is that WP:V is not relevant to this discussion and you are trying to bend the definition of ONUS to where it does not apply.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Then how about the basic logic of 5 people 8 years ago do not trump a discussion with coming on 30 today? nableezy - 15:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Look, it's blatantly obvious what is happening here. You're poisoning the well because you see that there is a strong chance that not enough people will agree with you that a clear consensus will go your way, so now you're saying that it would be unjust the discussion to be closed as "no-consensus" and maintain the status quo. Just stop with the meta-discussion; it is unbecoming at this point. An uninvolved person will at some point assess consensus and decide what to do, stop trying to anticipate that they could reach an unjust conclusion and influence the discussion that way. You influence the discussion by voting. You've done that. At some point, the meta-discussion becomes WP:BLUDGEONing, and needs to stop. Let your vote be oppose or remove, let other people vote how they will, and let someone else close the discussion how they see fit. The rest of this is distracting. --Jayron32 15:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Assume bad faith much? Ive had the same position in that discussion referenced, that it should require an affirmative consensus to remain. So maybe reorient your view on what is blatantly obvious a bit? You dont know what Im thinking, or why, and my view on what is right or wrong is not so malleable that it shifts based on the position I take in one specific discussion. I see you dont have an answer to any of the questions asked, like how 5 people 8 years ago would trump this discussion. nableezy - 15:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
You still don't get multiple votes in the discussion. Your position is clear. It doesn't need further elaboration. Give it a rest and let other people give their views. --Jayron32 17:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I havent voted multiple times, somebody else raised a process question and I gave my position on the process. A position Ive consistently held. You then made several assumptions of bad faith and attributed motives to me that are manifestly not true. Thanks. nableezy - 17:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - This is a massively pointy nomination, and I think that a direct comparison with US college sports is deeply misleading. It's not like there's a National Rowing League that the Boat Race is a feeder for, or anything. This is the single most prominent and culturally significant rowing event. And I get that that's weird, and that's why my opposition is only weak. I'd be happy to argue for or against each Boat Race on the merits if it came to it. But this is being proposed because an unrelated US event didn't get posted, and that's disruptive. And I concur with Jayron32 above, that no consensus means a retention of the status quo, not a default to non-inclusion. Nableezy is patently trying to misrepresent the rules in order to steamroller through their preferred outcome. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
lol wut? nableezy - 14:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
It's a valid argument. You went straight to nominating this for removal after you made a derogatory comment about the closure of the CFP nom. Absolutely this was a WP:POINTy act. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Me seeking to make ITN more equitable and honest is not disrupting Wikipedia. If you feel that it is, WP:ANI is open 24x7. nableezy - 15:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has any interest in going to WP:ANI, but I would certainly mind your discourse at ITN, and incidentally also avoid comments like That right there, thats the dumbest thing youve said this week when we are trying to have civil discussions about how ITN should operate. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Nice, leaving out the part where I was called a liar for using a synonym. nableezy - 15:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't agree with HiLo's method of discourse either. But it takes two to tango, and you could have disengaged at any time instead of continuing to escalate. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: It depends on your take on those things. On the one hand, The Boat Race is a contest between two universities, which are not countries and make it seem more restrictive. On the other hand, those two universities admit students from all over the world and there are multi-national crews every year.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove per xaos and the other remove votes above. It's not significant enough to justify spending the screen real estate. Also I agree with the general call for consistent standards for ITN. This is a very unimportant sports competition in the world of sports competitions (far smaller audience than most college sports). Posting darts and rowing and snooker but not posting college football is just stupid. Levivich (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove per nableezy, Modest Genius, Vanamonde, King of Hearts, xaosflux, and Levivich. The fact that this discussion keeps recurring means we don't have a solid consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove. While the nomination itself feels a bit WP:POINTY, the sports items at ITN/R are largely professional events, with the major exception being the NCAA D1 basketball tournaments, which were added in large part due to comparisons to The Boat Race. In the case of basketball, the culture around March Madness and the "perfect bracket" dominates discussion more than the games themselves. I would be amenable to replacing TBR with the World Rowing Championships. — GhostRiver 20:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article tends to be one of quality, the event is well covered and is widely watched. I think we should lean toward featuring more items on ITN, NCAA basketball and American football championships included. SpencerT•C 20:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • That's true, we should post both, but we don't. This is textbook disparate impact: we have a process in place that always post TBR and always rejects CFP, even though the latter is more significant by any objective metric. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove as per nableezy, Modest Genius, xaosflux, Levivich, and others. Calling this a WP:POINTY proposal is a disingenuous and disappointing attempt to delegitimize the discussion. This state of affairs has been problematic for many years and is referenced regularly in ITN discussions as one of our most questionable best practices. At best, it's a quirky outlier in our collaborative list of highly-notable sporting events. At worst, it is an embarrassment to our consistency that becomes a wedge issue in many front-page blurb conversations. In good faith, the nominator started this talk page discussion to try to resolve this.

    Anyone with even a basic knowledge of the sports landscape would find this situation odd and inconsistent and would ask, "Why does The Boat Race have a privileged regular spot while other clearly more popular events by viewership (see below) that the public has an interest in reading about have to claw and fight each year for an WP:ITN posting?" I don't have a good answer for those folks.

    Can we identify any other sporting ITN/R item that are this constrained in terms of the "competition," where the two participants are unchanging and completely known beforehand? I'm astonished people have framed this as "high level competition" when by definition the same two designated constituents facing each other each year is the opposite. The Boat Race has ceremony, history, tradition, and majesty. Let's not oversell it as "high level competition" on the global stage. Let's also put this all into perspective here - we are discussing its front page blurb status and not deleting it. No one wants it deleted. People can still read about it easily, and it should be in Portal:Current events every year, like clockwork. It's time. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
    Let's also put this all into perspective here - we are discussing its front page blurb status, and not for deleting it. This too is disingenuous. Your wording implies that once removed from ITN/R, it will never be eligible again for posting on ITN. That isn't how it works; in fact, the "Please do not..." header on ITN/C explicitly points this out. The items can still be nominated for ITN/C, there just needs to be a local consensus on significance rather than automatically receiving the "protection" that ITN/R provides. Consider the fact that the College Football Playoff is nominated every year and there have actually been years where it has been posted, despite not being ITN/R. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
    It wasn't meant to imply it would never be eligible for posting on ITN. It was simply to say this is a lot of drama for something that will still be available in prominent ways. A removal from ITN/R would still mean it's a blank slate for being on ITN/C. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
    If the college football championship was posted in some years but not others, are we implying that the importance of the event changed from one year to another? Or is this simply because Wikipedia decisions get made by the small handful of people who showed up in a discussion one day? Zagalejo (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    I'm mistaken, the header does not say what I thought it did. I think once upon a time it did. Nevertheless, items aren't forbidden from being nominated and posted through ITN/C just because they aren't on ITN/R. From my recollection, it has never worked that way.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
    EG: this is the process trying to be demonstrated for the Game Awards currently at the top of this page. Masem (t) 16:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove English cultural thing, I guess, bit like the Grand National, I used to watch both once upon a time. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
    The Grand National that is also ITN/R. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    Seems like something worth examining ;) nableezy - 16:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    Indeed, let's get rid of all the horse races as they're just locally interesting, especially the Kentucky Derby for instance. Good idea. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Given the current state of ITN, where the oldest blurb is two weeks old, I believe we need more blurbs, not less. Although we cannot control when news happens, keeping ITN fresh would require an average of a blurb a day, and the easiest way to address that would be to allow more blurbs to pass the "significance" standard, since we're not going to (and shouldn't) remove the quality standard. I therefore vote in favour of keeping/adding all three college sports events to ITN/R. NorthernFalcon (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
    We can chose to remove certain items while at the same time broadening what we include in ITN. To me, I have voted "remove" not because The Boat Race is a borderline item, but because it isn't even close in my mind. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. The Boat Race pales in comparison to most of the other entries on ITNR. Plus, like others have above, it's worth stressing that the Boat Race can still be blurbed in the future. This discussion is only about whether the Boat Race is no longer "considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN" (words from ITNR, emphasis mine). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    "The Boat Race pales in comparison to most of the other entries on ITNR" please provide reliably sourced evidence for your claim. Or is it simply "your opinion"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
    The entire ITNR list was built with people's personal opinions. Specifically, opinions on topics vis-à-vis the "importance" criterion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove I don't believe this is the best solution to the problem. The best solution IMO is to treat significance as a (fairly low) threshold and hold quality to higher account. But that was been rejected by the community when I proposed it. Given where we sit now, it makes us look silly to post such an insignificant event every year. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    This is a bizarre position, what isn't "the best solution to the problem"? What's the problem? We post badminton and college sports and other "insignificant events" every year. Has anyone outside this community complained about it looking "silly" or did you just make that up? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
    There is no cause for personal attacks, and I've no intention to engage with uncivil and bad faith arguments. Your position has been noted, as has mine. Let that be enough. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove as not notable enough to merit inclusion in ITN/R. Consensus seems strong to remove it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 02:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove Frankly, I don't fall far short of arguing that ITNR should be constrained to global events of global impact. For example, perhaps the inaugurations of major political leaders—US, SFR, China etc.,―with an emphasis on global, so neither the quasi-leader of Burkino Faso Disputed Zone or amateur sports, for that matter should automatically qualify. Otherwise, front page-worthy material should be there wholly on its own merits. SN54129 12:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment -- it's been four days since the last comment, and consensus seems strong that the boat race should be removed from ITN/R. Can an admin please close this and do so? Thanks! --RockstoneSend me a message! 04:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
It's been open for under 3 weeks, and the next event is not until April. There is no harm in leaving the conversation open a bit longer. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove, per nom. This is an amateur boat race between two universities. While it's significant for Oxbridge, Wikipedia is not merely made up of Oxbridge folks. This sort of event does not seem to automatically warrant a blurb (though it could if a particular such event had something truly bizarre go down). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove – Not a top-level event. It's literally a competition between two universities. Graham (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

OpposeFlawed nomination. The Boat Race has a longer modern tradition than Football, Basketball or most of other sports. "No significance" does not apply here. As for me, one of the longest running tournaments is ITN worthy and if the article is in fair shape, it should be posted.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2023 (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.

Subnational Governments and ITN/R

Latest comment: 1 year ago36 comments19 people in discussion

Recently the status of elections at ITN/R have come up as a frequent topic of discussion, both through desire for removal and also desire for expansion, one topic that has come up with frequency in the past (and is relevant to a current ITN discussion) is the status of subnational governments as ITN items. So, out of a desire for an answer to this question, it appears time we have a formal proposal: Should any variety of subnational governments (such as states, provinces, autonomous regions, cities, etc.) be eligible for inclusion to ITN/R? And note, the question is a general one designed to gauge if a closer look into this topic should be conducted, meaning the question as far as the inclusion of specific candidates would be asked down the line. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  • No, we're fine holding discussions of this nature, in the moment, when they come up at WP:ITNC. We don't need to handle everything through ITN/R; indeed most items we end up discussing and posting at ITN are not obviously covered by anything at ITN/R, and we don't have any "In The News/Never Post These Ever" list (nor should we). Instead, just let such discussions happen when they happen, and don't try to make rules for everything. Not everything needs to be predecided. Indeed, for most things, we'll want to examine the evidence in the moment and reach a decision appropriate to the specific context. Yes, we don't often post leadership changes for subnational governments. Sometimes, however, we should. We should only be guided by the general principles listed at WP:ITN, which is to say, look article quality, look at whether the articles are updated, and look to see if reliable sources demonstrate the topic is significantly covered in the news. That's good enough for, like, everything, always. ITNR is only about for when we have subjects were we never expect the "significantly covered in the news" criteria to be lacking; for example we generally expect that the Super Bowl will be a major event. We don't need to discuss whether this years Super Bowl is, it pretty much always is. Not every potential topic meets that standard, and that's okay. If some event isn't listed on ITNR, it doesn't mean it can't be posted. It just means we need to look at the actual source material and decide if the reliable sources are covering it in a way that demonstrates significance.--Jayron32 19:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I would be in Support as regards autonomous regions. I would be Opposed as regards cities. Regarding states and provinces - it depends on the country and the circumstances. There are instances where I think we should cover them and instances were it's not practical/possible. So I suppose I would be against including them in ITN/R as I think they normally would need more discussion.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose adding this to ITN/R. There's no easy criterion that would be widely applicable, and I would much rather handle these on a case-by-case basis. In general I don't think subnational leadership changes reach the bar for ITN inclusion, but I wouldn't want to rule them out definitively either. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would open the floodgates. Wisconsin has state supreme court elections on April 4 for which The Guardian says that the "stakes are monstrous". The article is in really good shape. Wouldn't this election be widely opposed by ITN, though? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
    As I stated, I'm not saying it should be a field day. Ideally the process would, if we decide to consider subnational governments, be to consider separately a number of items. Perhaps in the end no particular one gains strong consensus and there's no real issue with that. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Mu - There is nothing barring anyone from nominating states, provinces, cities, etc. to ITN/R under the current rules, so I think the question being asked here is a bit misleading. We shouldn't allow all of them, of course, but on an individual basis should still be okay.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Not now. Most sub-national elections shouldn't be on ITN at all, as for the rest I don't see a reason to deviate from the usual practice of requiring at least 2-3 instances posted via ITN/C before considering ITN/R. As far as I am aware, no subnational elections have been posted that many times so proposing any for ITN/R is premature. I don't see why any that do get such consensus should be automatically excluded from the recurring list though. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • SNOW this discussion Few subnational governments would ever even make it to ITN, and there's no way any should be on ITN/R. (For what it's worth, in regards to an above discussion, I don't even think every sovereign nation's election should be ITN/R, but I'm willing to concede that setting an arbitrary threshold is dangerous; "this is a full, independent nation, even if it's only got 50,000 people" is at least rational.) -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
    Can we not snow close this? This is directly relevant to the current Nicola Sturgeon discussion, where some people do seem interested in discussing this idea. Zagalejo (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
    They should be considered separate discussions. The Sturgeon one is a single instance (not on ITNR nor is there enough time for this discussion to conclude to be added to ITNR) which can continue to be discussed as a normal ITNC entry. Masem (t) 01:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
SNOW is for when it's clear to the prospective closing admin that there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the position changes. I wish people would stop invoking it as a call for early closure. I've seen people do it in the second comment on some proposals, and that's just not what it's for. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose right now there's a heavy bias towards political news and political deaths at ITN, and while I'd concede that political news should be one of the heavier biases, I don't think there's sufficient non-political content at this point to balance out the adding of sub-national elections, although I'd be willing to revisit that question later. With that said, I'd also like to add that all sub-national governments are not created equal; in some nations, some sub-national governments have nearly as much or more authority than the national government. It may be worthwhile to discuss whether the elections of internationally-recognized autonomous regions deserve to be posted to ITN, or whether there are any other sub-national regions of similar independence and authority to an autonomous region. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose There's certainly some overtly notable sub-national elections (ex. those in the UK's various devolved governments, the Netherlands' constituent countries, certain US states, various Spanish autonomous regions, and so on); however, to add them to ITNR as a whole would open the floodgates for a flurry of unnecessary content. I'd prefer allowing them to be nominated and evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but not a blanket "these should be added." The Kip (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Should be handled on a case-by-case basis. That means also, we should not do the opposite and slam something down just because it is a subnational entity. For example, not every single general election in California or Catalonia may be significant enough, but if one is and it is heavily covered, it should be considered for posting on its own merit. Curbon7 (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Exactly this. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Judge each case on its merits ITN/R should be depreciated because it is blatant OR and crystal-balling in trying to rule on the significance of future events for all time. Its theory that a tiny place like Monaco is more significant than similar places such as Gibraltar, substantial countries such as Scotland and major states like California is quite wrong. Editors should be free to comment on the merits of such nominations and do so anyway, as we see here. ITN/R is therefore more trouble than it's worth and would be best abolished per WP:CREEP and KISS. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
If you don't like ITN/R, that's a separate issue. What we're talking about here is a proposed expansion of ITN/R (which I oppose). But I would also oppose your proposed abandonment of it, and I don't think the two proposals should be confused. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with GeneviveDEon on all parts of this comment. Andrew, your dislike of ITNR is well known, but equally well known to pretty much everyone other than you is that this view is not in accordance with consensus, and you should not attempt to shoehorn your repeated attempts to change that into every discussion, relevant or otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Andrew is a well-known disruptor opposed to the very idea of ITNR, his proposals here are nothing out of the ordinary to what he consistently complains about yet never acts on. The Kip (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're the person to complain about WP:CRYSTAL considering you argued for the posting of the UFO shootdowns under the guise they may have been Chinese. The Kip (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I think it would make sense to have a collective, rather than ad hoc decision about which would qualify for ITN, lest we be accused of bias for approving one (like Northern Ireland) and rejecting something similar. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
    Funny you mention that. We did actually post the 2022 Northern Ireland Assembly election. It was a very contentious nomination for similar reasons to the Scotland nom. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
    And you'll not my comment on Scotland that we should be careful about rules exceptions the benefit the Anglosphere. It's not hard to imagine why the ones that get closest are in the UK. I myself thought SF's win was big news because of personal ties, but really it was more of a shift towards non-sectarianism. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
    Why would we need a collective decision? We can't know which specific subnational elections may have stories about them which reach enough significant coverage that readers may be hearing about them outside of Wikipedia, and thus we don't know which such elections may merit inclusion in ITN. It's the sort of thing that can only be assessed in the moment. We don't decide ahead of time what reliable sources will do in the future, we just react to what they do when they do it. --Jayron32 13:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
    Excellent question. Because without any guidance, we are more likely to get nominations and support for Anglophone areas because of the bias of our editors. In actual practice, we reject some as sub-national while others get the "Hey, now wait a minute, this is more important than usual" treatment. We are more likely to think the Scottish PM quitting or Sinn Fein topping the polls is significant because we have a more nuanced understanding of the political atmosphere of these places. Treated in isolation, it can seem reasonable to say "THIS IS ON THE FRONT PAGE OF CNN!!!" while forgetting that is characteristic of the same bias. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
    At the same time, we need to use extensive reliable source coverage as a soft criterion for establishing significance. So if the coverage is rampant, even for a subnational election, we're almost duty-bound to nominate it even if we expect it'll receive opposition from the usual suspects. It's part of ITN's mission to direct readers to quality content that may be related to current events. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose adding to ITN/R - fine to debate at ITN/C, especially since all regions are considered differently and the circumstances of each transition of power will have different merits. Kingsif (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  • What Curbon7 Said Very holistic. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose adding to ITN/R. Sub-national government changes are classical examples of events that should be evaluated on their own merits. I generally oppose their inclusion but there are exceptions, though.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
  • No, but they should be viewed more favorably at ITN/C instead of being auto-rejected nearly every time. In my opinion: If the California gubernatorial race is front-page news on The Guardian UK, then we should post it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
    See, that's my main concern. The problem is we have x number of people who appear categorically opposed to anything that is not explicitly al election for head of state. Perhaps ITN/R isn't the best way to resolve this but it is still a problem. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
    Well I think this thread shows a clear consensus that at least some subnational elections are or might be suitable for ITN and that they should be nominated ITN/C. This to me is an implicit consensus that "not a head of state" is not a valid reason to oppose and should be ignored. Thryduulf (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
    What are you talking about?! We absolutely should not ignore editors' opinions. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    When a recommendation is based on a view that is not supported by consensus then it should be accorded no to minimal weight in discussions. The consensus is clear that subnational elections should not be opposed solely on the basis of being a subnational election, so !votes like "oppose - not a head of state" or "oppose - provincial election" should carry no weight in determining consensus in the same way that "keep - every sportsperson should have an article" would be ignored in an AfD. Comments like "oppose - the city only has a population of 8,000 and the election is getting no coverage even in other parts of the same state" would not be ignored, nor would "oppose - run of the mill election to an assembly with very limited powers" as they are not based on a rejected view. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Heads up: Jimmy Carter

Latest comment: 1 year ago45 comments19 people in discussion

Carter has been reported to started home hospice care today, so likely soon will be reported dead. I suspect the nomination is going to get a lot of discussion, so I feel getting the heads up may alleviate some issues when it actually happens. Masem (t) 21:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  • The last US President to die was discussed at ITN in 2018. The discussion and outcome doesn't seem to have been especially difficult or surprising. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
    My concern is arguments over blurb v RD. The article quality looks to be in great shape so there will be no question of the RD when it happens, but Carter seems like a clear blurb given his impact during and after his presidency. That may be debatable so its worthwhile to know this debate will be coming. Masem (t) 21:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty certain this is going to be very contentious. Jimmy Carter's legacy might be revered in the circles of academicians and historians, but his dubious status in the minds of contemporary Americans will assure that nom participants will think he's "not that big of a deal". I think the "major figures" criterion will look more shaky than ever after this nom. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
    This is why we should be looking at what's documented in the article to factor into things like major figures, rather than rely on what editors claim is true in their !votes. Carter's accomplishments are clearly outlined in the lede and legacy section, among other parts of the body, so regardless if younger editors feel he did little, we should clearly be going by sources in making that decision. (I've proposed this before, and this is a clear example where it works) Masem (t) 16:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It'll be blurb vs Photo RD this time, God willing. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind, too, some of us figured he was going to die over seven years ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Me, I think winter. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Former US President, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and the man who mediated the first peace agreement between Israel and an Arab country? I don't think it will be that close. Even those of us who are not fans of his politics generally understand he was an extraordinary figure whose claim to significance may have actually gone up after leaving office. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
    Of all the living former US presidents, I don't think there any with a claim to a blurb anywhere close to as strong as Carter has, although I would likely also support blurbs for Trump and Obama if they died tomorrow. Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
    Didn't Barack Obama get a Nobel Prize? And I think Donald Trump claimed he had gotten one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, but he also took the drone war Bush started to staggering new heights of low. Donald Trump claims a lot of things. Don't make me link a conversation I once had with myself about General Electric and whole cheesy mess, just trust me, Carter was the truly peaceful one in the pax Americana era, with Trump a distant second on account of his incredibly foul mouth. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    Is there any doubt that both Obama and Trump will be blurbed when they die? BD2412 T 04:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    The skeptic in me doubts everything, but the gambling side says they're all sure enough. Within certainty there are still levels, though, and I think most of us here are only saying that Carter is the one we'd choose if we had to choose just one still-warm president to publicize. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    If leading a good life was what made death itself a story, I would definitely support a blurb for Carter. It wouldn't be one line about how he was a former American president or an old man or the oldest former American president. It'd be a right proper eulogy, probably seven paragraphs and three photos long, because you can't describe a transformative, legendary or beloved figure by pointing out that they recently died. It's like trying to secure peace in Palestine, trade with Nigeria or a decent health care system and universal tolerance in America by wiping a duck really hard with a napkin. It just doesn't make sense. And if it doesn't make sense, you must Oppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  • You appear to confusing ITN with an article. All ITN blurbs are, by years-long consensus, one-line summaries of the news event that link to the full article. They are pointers, they are not obituaries, news stories, or anything else. Thryduulf (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
    You seem to have missed how I set up a hypothetical situation before saying how I'd handle it. In the current practical ITN world, yeah, brevity is better. But I don't see how having that one line be as cut and dry as "Former x y (pictured) dies at age z" really gets across the idea that someone was a major figure. In this world, if Jimmy Carter dies, I will actually support a Photo RD. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
    I don't understand how ITN could ever function in the way you seem to desire it to without changing it's entire purpose, scope and a major redesign of the entire main page. Putting "Former x y (pictured) dies at age z" in with the major news stories does get across the idea their death is more significant than those of others who don't get that - i.e. a much larger and more significant pointer to their article. In the current incarnation of ITN, I will continue to oppose creating a third tier of deaths - either someone should be RD only or they should get a blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
    There's no such thing as a "photo RD". It's not likely to be an issue anyway, as I imagine it will be an easy blurb decision. Also, it's slightly macabre to be having this discussion when the guy isn't actually dead yet, and for all we know may not be so for months to come...  — Amakuru (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
    It's very much a thing at other Wikipedias. En.wiki already does it for select RDs on top of telling their ages (which are already covered in their bios' opening lines, infoboxes and Death updates). It's no less macabre to fixate on celebrity lifespan after the fact, in my opinion, and Carter started publicly discussing his own mortality many years before we did. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
    Dan LeBatard once claimed that the Miami Herald had a continuously-updated obituary written for Fidel Castro over 20 years in advance of his actual death. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    That's not unusual, see List of premature obituaries. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

He'll most likely get a blurb for being a Nobel Peace Prize laureate in addition to the presidency, but I really don't get the point of this premature discussion. Is this a proposal to start verifying someone's eligibility for a blurb in advance so that anticipated endless discussions are avoided?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Would be lovely if we can create a death and state funeral-style article quickly, if he passes. This would be an obvious blurb target to represent our work of encyclopedic news coverage :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  • This seems like a lot of wasted effort considering we routinely blurb the deaths of former heads of state. For example, Pervez Musharraf was blurbed until around a week ago. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think such blurbing is automatic. Look at the debate over the last King of Greece from about a month ago. A world leader that had an ineffective term and unremarkable life (for example, if we were talking Gerald Ford), an RD may be suitable. A point made above by Walt would suggest that younger editors may consider Carter to have almost no impact today, which I expect to also be a point raised if/when the blurb is nominated. Masem (t) 16:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Maplestrip: Might as well start Draft:Death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter; it's a matter of when. BD2412 T 02:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    I think this is a case where he will qualify on "death is the story" grounds due to the state funeral, not to mention that he has packed a lot into his record breaking 42 year post-presidency. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    "Death is the story" is usually based on the unusual manner of death, ala Kobe Byrant's death in the helicopter crash. Most world leaders get state funerals, some with more pomp than others, but that's still expected for great leaders. At least for Carter, his presidency and his post political career have been greatly recognized to easily fit the "major figures" aspect. Masem (t) 19:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

As a general rule I think any Nobel Laureate head of state should get a blurb. There are few people who check both boxes. Jehochman Talk 01:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a preference for which widely covered accomplishment we remind readers they already heard about years ago first? That's a serious question and a sarcastic one. I'd rather lead with the laureateship, since more people know that's a lifetime position than know Carter is still technically an American president with most of the same high-level benefits "the" sitting one has. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
As a teenager I always used to wonder why Democrats would continually refer to Carter as "Mr. President" even after he had left office. Originally I thought they were just trying to live in an alternate reality where he was still in his 9th-something term of office. I now know what you just said, that they retain some of the perks and status of the position even after they are done with politics. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Some? After leaving office, they literally keep office. Not in the ceremonial titular sense, but all the free supplies, staff and postage they need to conduct presidential business without the scrutiny their peers get for just sitting there, all obviously asking for easily distracted reporters' attention. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, but they don't get to fly around on Air Force One anymore (although given the healthy stipend they receive for transportation after leaving office, one can argue that's actually a benefit rather than a loss). ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd call a million dollars "healthy". Those first ladies "aren't exactly starving" with $500,000 each, either. Did you know Carter once rode Delta to a former president's inauguration? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
We can't blurb every former head of state - that would be too cumbersome and not all stand the test of time. Personally I have long considered myself set to "oppose" in the event of Carter's passing, but ultimately I have been convinced enough to at least lean the other direction. I tend to agree on the Peace Prize front, though I think it has started to become devalued recently (I daresay in part due to Carter, who to me is much more notable for what he DIDN'T do, and what he did that didn't end up standing up). DarkSide830 (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I think the mistake is in treating all former heads of state equally, regardless of the importance of the country they're from. I'd suggest a tiered list: superpowers (US, formerly USSR, currently China), all former heads of state should get blurbs; great powers, any former head of state who served a full term; middle powers, any former head of state who served several terms, is viewed as one of the greatest of that nation's leaders, or had a significant regional impact; minor nations, only if it was the greatest leader in their history (or regional impact). NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I think the mistake would be to not treat all former heads of state equally. This is a global encyclopaedia, and as such, the heads of state of the US and China are no more important than those of other countries. Chrisclear (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Except they literally are, by virtue of leading one of the world's few superpowers. And anyways, we've posted the deaths of other heads of state recently, like in the cases of Angola and Pakistan. Curbon7 (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I concur. While I agree wholeheartedly with efforts to combat systemic bias, such efforts are not coequal to disregarding nuance or tangible facts for the sake of achieving some intangible quota. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
We have never "[treated] all former heads of state equally"; we generally only post heads-of-state who had a significant impact in their region (hence why there were so many opposes when the old king of Greece passed). This technically has nothing to do with the country, just with the person. Arguably, it would be helpful if we had a less subjective way of judging what to blurb, but that's a whole can of worms of course. We surely don't want to blurb all former heads-of-state, at least: If Liz Truss dies in 30 years we wouldn't blurb her for her 50-day stint for example. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
A good starting point (I think) is the top 10 countries by GDP. There would be additions and subtractions from there (Japan and Italy have a lot of short-timers). GreatCaesarsGhost 12:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Note that another Nobel laureate died recently -- Paul Berg. Kudos to Curbon7, who made a nomination, and to the editors who made updates, including Jarszick, Yoshi876 and Neveselbert. Me, I added his picture and a caption to the nomination. But otherwise, there was zero response to the nomination and so nothing was done and the nomination has scrolled off. Only 6,653 readers have looked at the article since the death and so it could have used more exposure.
So, ITN failed. This might be because the subject was a scientist -- a pioneer of genetic engineering who went on to consider the ethics of this powerful and dangerous new technology. This person had both significance and legacy but they have been snubbed here.
As the NYT just got to this two days ago, perhaps it's not too late to give them the attention they deserve. Jimmy Carter needs no such help as over a million readers have viewed his article since the recent announcement.
Andrew🐉(talk) 18:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I've bumped Berg up to the 17th, as that's when his death was seemingly first reported, and supported. So hopefully he will now go up to RD today. The problem is, if nobody supports something it won't be posted and will roll off. It's not ideal, and you'd hope some eyes would get on to all noms at some point.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I just noticed and was working out where he'd got to, thanks. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_98&oldid=1194977907"