Misplaced Pages

talk:In the news: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:14, 25 August 2024 editStephen (talk | contribs)Administrators49,417 edits Undid revision 1242239175 by Sportsnut24, you know how to nominate itTag: Undo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:31, 4 January 2025 edit undoBagumba (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators174,432 edits →Delays in picture update: ReplyTag: Reply 
(927 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 13: Line 13:
}}{{user:MiszaBot/config }}{{user:MiszaBot/config
| maxarchivesize = 150K | maxarchivesize = 150K
| counter = 112 | counter = 115
| minthreadsleft = 4 | minthreadsleft = 4
| algo = old(14d) | algo = old(14d)
Line 22: Line 22:
__TOC__{{-}} __TOC__{{-}}


== Proposal: Remove "Israel-Hamas war" and "Israeli invasion of Lebanon" and replace them with "Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)" to the Ongoing section ==
== Should we change the pictures daily? ==


Currently, Israeli military activities are taking up two places in the Ongoing section. Given that both the Israel-Hamas war and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon fall under the ] article, I propose replacing them both with the Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) article. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon, while certainly notable and ongoing (despite the ceasefire back on 26 November), doesn't reflect that right now the news is giving more coverage to neighboring Syria (not to mention the ]). The nice thing about the ] is that it covers all of the events and consolidates them into a single article.
I think so. The other main page sections do. This might include Photo RDs. If not, it may require reposting the same picture after a few days, or a different picture from the same article. It may even give us an incentive to post more articles in a timely fashion. However it happens, we seem to keep getting stuck on the last posted ones for rather long times lately. Is that what we want? ] (]) 22:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)


At the same time, I recognize that the Middle Eastern Crisis article may require ]. But the issue still stands that the ongoing section has two different articles that are arguably part of the same general topic. Imagine if alongside the ], we also had the ] article listed separately.
:Changing the image daily sounds like a great idea to me. ] ] 23:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:I am still trying to evaluate if there is a template/bot supporting option to establish a type of image carousel for this type of thing to make thing mostly automatic.
:Changing the image is very admin heavy (verify image protection, make sure image is appropriate, change the "pictured" part of the blurb, etc) that we should try to avoid this too much. But I agree when an image is up for at least 48hr whether dye to lack of new blurbs, or blurbs without images, then exploring a new replacement image is reasonable as long as we aren't fighting for what image gets it. ] (]) 22:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::For the last three hours or so, I've been trying to get the big red one from ] through to ERRORs. If it's OK with you, we ''could'' start working together on moving that forward. If not, totally understandable, no worries! ] (]) 23:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I've looked at that one, and put it in the queue a couple of days ago, but it's very poor quality and has visible artefacts in the thumbnail. ]] 23:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I just noticed {{tq|This file, which was originally posted to an external website, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid.}} So OK, forget it, it sounds like there ''is'' a queue. Go with another? ] (]) 23:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::"Go with another?" What one exactly? ]] 23:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::I can't see any queue. I thought you could. Maybe even one where buddy doesn't look ''happy'' with the bad news? ] (]) 23:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::By "in the queue", I believe Stephen meant ] to ]. —] 23:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, thank you. I was clumsily pointing out that I'd already considered that picture, but ruled it out on quality grounds. ]] 23:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::]'s was up for a while, but it's now been a while ago, so there's that. ] (]) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Images are for the topmost item if an image is available for that item. ]] 23:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::You no-sold my vote at the April Cantelo nom, but yeah, ]. ] (]) 23:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::But that's an RD and there's no consensus to have pictures for RDs, however many times you suggest it. ]] 23:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::] ] (]) 00:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::And yes, I am serious. There's just a bug going around that makes links like these look small (to me, at least). That's not urgent, but later, maybe. ] (]) 00:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::]'s is pretty cool, too. Could remind more people that ]s exist. We all already know there's a ]. ] (]) 00:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Get that discussion above properly closed with consensus in your favour and we can start picturing RDs. Then all the hand wringers can be pointed at this new consensus. ]] 00:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I gave it my best and my best is ''sometimes'' just enough; however it goes, it was good working with you again! ] (]) 00:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::The other queue is the commons' category related to checking the licenses of such files. that queue appears to be at least x0,000-some deep. I don't know what they are doing over there for that purpose, but that's not an en.wiki aspect. ] (]) 00:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. Good idea to ensure / showcase the freshness of the homepage. Would also support cycling through the blurb AND RDs for images. No need for any change in ITNC processes. Re: the implementation, would be good to have a protected queue of images and hopefully a bot comes by and rotates the images. ] (]) 16:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)


Please forgive me if this is the wrong place for this, because I read the ] section of the article and felt that this doesn't seem like a usual nomination that applied (the "the date of the event" would be 7 October 2024, but the page only goes as far back as December 9th 2024). ] (]) 01:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' - the purpose of image changing on the main page is meant to correlate with changes in the section. If we want ITN to be more fresh, than we should focus on getting more stories on the front page. — ]] 14:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)


:This should be proposed on the main ] page, not here.
== Removing the closing ceremonies of the Olympics from INTR ==
:That said, that Middle Eastern crisis page is a lot of OR by combining several different, very unrelated concepts into a single page, and thus does not represent the quality we expect. There ''is'' a well-established connection (from sources) between the Israel-Hamas war and the Isreal-Lebonon aspects but I don't think we have a good page that covers all that. ] (]) 01:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Can you explain what "different, very unrelated concepts" you're referring to? If you have suggestions as to how to improve the Middle Eastern crisis article, please offer them at that page's talk page.
::Saying that it "should be proposed on the main WP:ITNC page" doesn't answer my question of how this proposal should even be formatted. I'm not asking for a specific event to be mentioned. I'm asking a question about the structure of the ongoing section. I'm not denying that the Middle Eastern Crisis article has cleanup issues. I'm saying that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon had a ceasefire a month ago, while the Israeli invasion of Syria (the current one, not the 1967-present one) happened last week and is currently getting far more news coverage compared to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (Compare to and see which one is getting more recent news articles). This observation, combined with the fact that the Middle Eastern Crisis article covers both Israeli invasions of those two countries (alongside Israel's invasion of the Gaza Strip), makes it more suitable for the ongoing section. If Israel invades Jordan today, does that mean we're going to have to add that as a separate ongoing event, making Israeli military activities three different ongoing articles? I think two is too many. Just having a single "Middle Eastern Crisis" article makes more sense. I say this as someone who made some contributions to the ] article. ] (]) 01:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:I don't think any article entitled "Middle Eastern crisis" is viable for the main page. It's just too high level and involves several unrelated or loosly related conflicts. Really, I'm not even sure such an article should even exist as per Masem. ] (]) 17:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Middle East crisis is far too non-specific. ] (]) 22:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Per Masem, "Middle Eastern crisis" is mostly connecting multiple loosely related conflicts, and not necessarily a good ITN topic. Agree that the invasion of Lebanon should be replaced by the invasion of Syria as the most active one. The invasions of Gaza and Lebanon can definitely be connected, but that of Syria (which could be called a ] at best) can't really be seen as another theater of the same war. ] (] · ]) 18:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== Five entries ==
] proclaims:
{{TQB|Opening''' and closing ceremonies''' of the:
Summer Olympic Games
Winter Olympic Games}}
In spite of this, for the ] of the ] was shut down, with people saying that it would make more sense to just rm the Olympics from ongoing. From this, the closing ceremonies have seemingly lost their mandate and so their status of ITNR needs reviewing. — ]] 13:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:Pinging those involved in the discussion: {{ping|Sandstein|MtPenguinMonster|Andrew Davidson|DecafPotato|Zzyzx11|Sportsnut24|Gödel2200|Joseph2302|Aydoh8|TheCorriynial|PrecariousWorlds|Masem}} — ]] 13:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' - if the opening ceremony is fair game, so should the closing ceremony. I understand not posting for quality reasons, but the fact that this was closed in a few days due people stating that we shouldn't even be posting this, especially considering that (unlike what Sandstein stated), this story is still younger than the top blurb, is mind-boggling to me. I see this as an attempt to somewhat lazily circumnavigate actually improving the article via just defeatedly throwing your hands in the air and stating that we should just not post an ITNR item. — ]] 13:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
::'''Should be kept, both Ceremonies''' The Olympics are major events every four years. We've just had an off year where we've not been able to post it. Thats all this is. They are always covered by many sources over many countries with IOC's, and even those that don't. ] (]) 13:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' - The Closing Ceremony is very much as notable for ITN as the opening ceremony and signifies the games are over ] (]) 13:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' too soon, as one bad year doesn't mean all subsequent years are going to be bad. If this us a longer trend that no one bothers to try to improve either article in time (that will include the winter Olympics), multiple times in a row, then we can talk removal. This was how, iurc, the one tennis US open or similar entry was removed, no one bother to update the results year after year.<span id="Masem:1723642655964:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNIn_the_news" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 13:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)</span>
*'''Oppose'''. I'll reserve judgement until probably at least the 2030 Winter Olympics (three more Olympics cycles, one more Summer and two more Winter) if this becomes a long-term trend. ] (]) 20:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''oppose''' per above. Also thanks for the ping in consideration of us as a show of good faith.] (]) 22:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*I see the argument here and actually tend to believe that we should at least make some change here. I think the individual notability of the Closing Ceremony is dwarfed by the Opening Ceremony, though I do believe appending the medals winner to the blurb would make it better stand out. ] (]) 16:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)


Why not? ] (]) 02:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
== Death of individuals who are the main subject of an article ==


:ITN's box must be balanced with the TFA box on the main page. Between the RD and Ongoing lines, we generally can only have four entries unless one blurb is super-short. ] (]) 02:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Recently, the death of ] was proposed at ITN, and the nomination was a mix of support/opposes based on criteria that seems to not take into account the notability of this individual and the spirit of the policy of ]. Internet memes are a relatively new cultural phenomena with the subjects in such memes becoming notable enough to be well-documented in such articles. ], ], etc. should all be notable enough to mention in the event the subject of these memes were to pass.
:]. "On this day" could alternatively be shortened, but the last ITN blurb is typically quite old anyways, barring a change in ITN approval patterns. —] (]) 02:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::It's five now. ] (]) 03:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


== ITNR addition proposal: The Game Awards ==
I'm proposing that we update ] to recognize that individuals who are the primary subject of an article, regardless of it being a BLP, are notable enough for a mention in RD. ] (]) 16:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)


The annual ceremony of ] has been posted for four years in a row (], ], ] and ]. I know that among other editors {{U|Rhain}} usually makes sure these are of quality after the ceremony is completed, so most of the quality issues are quickly resolved. <br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>Key point is that with each of these cases, we do see coverage beyond the video game media of the show's results (that is, meeting the ITN aspect). I know that there are multiple other award events in the video game area, but of those, neither the DICE awards or the GDCA awards gain major press coverage, and while the BAFTA Games awards can see some coverage, that event also has some limited participation (eg some categories exist only for British games), whereas The Game Awards remain open for any published game. The BAFTA Games also lacks the type of ceremony of similar scale (its more a cut and dry ceremony), and its article doesn't see the same type of quality due to that, making it harder to be a suggestion.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>If added there is only the one ceremony per year and the blurb should be used to identify the game of the year winner. This would be the first instance for an ITNR video game related category, not that I can see any other video game ITNR coming any time soon (closest would be one of the esport tourneys but those have had problems with quality updates as well as type of coverage they get).<span id="Masem:1735483772087:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNIn_the_news" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 14:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
*'''Oppose''' flat out allowance, but also not against inclusion in such cases. The problem I saw with the Karlsson article was there was literally only a paragraph about him from a biographical standpoint. If that was longer, around 3 or so paragraphs that gave a fuller picture of his life outside that video (to a point a standalone could be justified but made more sense to keep in the video article), it likely would have been fine. To use the examples, Arato's got enough of a section to be reasonable, while there is zero on Roth's for this. Another example that I would consider for such posting like the Arato case is ]. ] (]) 16:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose for now''' I think it needs more time to mature and establish itself as the highest game award, particularly since, AFAIK, there hasn't been the top tier video game award before that to consider that would have honored the 1980s or the 1990s era, for instance. Most awards in that regard at ] are several decades old, with the "youngest" probably being ] (21 years now). ] also leaves some room to wait. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I believe a compromise here makes sense. Karlson did expand into multiple paragraphs, fwiw. Reflecting upon Roth, her article amounts to little more than a stub and was probably a bad example, however, I would presume upon her death details about her life would be covered by reliable sources (similar to Roth). ] (]) 16:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''', clear that it meets ITN standards in previous years, and it will be in the news. Provided the quality is good enough, I'm happy enough to have this as reoccuring. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Karlsons still at a state that there is only one paragraph truly about him outside of the video. We would never split that off to a separate article in that state. I think more could have been written from the o it's but no one supporting the RD made action to do that. It is really going to depend on how that person was known before or after from the meme. I know Arato has accepted him place as a meme image (going to cons and such) so that's why he's fair game, but we have zero about Roth in this sense. ] (]) 16:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' (as a primary contributor). Been waiting for this one. I think the Game Awards established itself as the "main" video game awards years ago, and has only continued to solidify its lead each year. The often mixed critical response is no different (perhaps even more positive) than those to the Emmys, Grammys, and Oscars, and certainly has no impact on their significance or newsworthiness. I think its last four ITN appearances prove that. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 03:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as unnecessary. Long standing precedent is that we generally expect a dedicated article for subjects to be posted at ITN. Some commonsense exceptions have been recognized and posted in the past. However, I don't think we should be lowering the bar here. Proposed exceptions to our normal practice can be handled on a case-by-case basis. -] (]) 16:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ] as the show is a promotional trade show dominated by advertising, hype and log-rolling. ]🐉(]) 16:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
**If this becomes our stance, we should add a bullet in the ITNRD notes section to state that these will be considered only on an exceptional basis. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 16:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
**By that metric so are the Oscars, Emmys, Grammy, the Super Bowl, the World Series, World Cup etc. As long as the underlying event itself is not something of corporate promotion, like in this case a large independent body of ppl in an industry voting on the winner of an award, that's not promotional. All the promotional stuff attached to the presentation are not aspects of why these events are ITNR<span id="Masem:1735577576922:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNIn_the_news" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 16:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
**:I don't think we need a legalistic approach to most things. The way ITN works and our expectations are largely based on precedent and sometimes have evolved organically over time. People should feel free to invoke ] or IAR whenever they think a nomination justifies an exception to our customary practice and make their case. Then we can discuss it and go from there. Not a big fan of ]. -] (]) 17:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Isn't every award show? '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 18:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support some change, but oppose as proposed'''. It shouldn't be a blanket allowance, but it should also not be a blanket ban as the rules are currently worded. They should be allowed to be assessed on a case by case basis. I don't really see a principled reason why an organism that does not have their own page, but is part of a group that does is technically eligible even if there is not a lot of coverage on that page, while an organism that does not have their own page but is the primary subject of a non-biographical, non-group page is never eligible no matter how in-depth the biographical information may be on that page. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Football (association) kits are literally billboards lol ] (]) 18:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The problem here would be identifying what "primary subject of an article" means. Ultimately, this is determined on a case by case basis. What I would support, however, would be changing: "Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis." to "Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on another article are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis," so that we make it clear that subjects having biographical coverage on another article ''could'' be posted, dependent upon a case-by-case assessment. ] (]) 23:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*:I mean, yes but then the only exciting bit about the Superbowl is the half-time advertisements... ] (]) 19:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose automatic allowance'''. per Gödel2200. There isn't really currently a blanket ban, as the second bullet of the notes section allows for consideration on a case-by-case basis (which is exactly what should happen). If there is a desire to make this clearer then I'd change {{tpq|an article about a group}} to {{tpq|a broader article}}. As someone whose coverage is only small mentions on a narrow article about someone/something else shouldn't be posted. There needs to be some actual biographical content about them. ] (]) 15:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|Andrew Davidson}} on what part of ] are you basing your argument? ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 19:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* I don't see a need for change. There's always IAR, and automatic allowance, as mentioned above, would be problematic. For example, Arató is has a decent case because most of the article is about him anyway. But with Roth, that article does not really read as close to biographic (and honestly seems very disjointed in general). ] (]) 16:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
*::Its general prohibition of "Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations". The prohibitions of endorsements and puffery also seem relevant. ]🐉(]) 08:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::{{tq|“Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable.”}} — I'm not so sure that this is applicable to this conversation. If NOTPROMO really were applicable to the page about TGA, the page should have a cleanup tag or be nominated for deletion. But the article is fine every year, and it'd be very hard to make a compelling case that the subject matter itself inherently fails NOTPROMO. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 15:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Where exactly is the advertising/puffery in say ], which is the scope of what we are talking about. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 17:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I can think that one might consider that 75% of the actual show is trailers for upcoming games, however, our coverage of this facet is one brief section of listing such games, or commentary from third party sources on the imbalance between game reveals and actual ceremony. Which is minimizing or eliminating the promotional elements to emphasis the actual awards and the rest of the presentation. ] (]) 17:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' although I would have waited for 5 years... ] (]) 19:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Of limited general interest. ] (]) 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Last show had a viewership of 154 million, far exceeding the viewership of the latest Oscars, Grammy, or Emmy program, and falls in the same ballpark as the Super Bowl (200million last time around). ] (]) 12:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


:'''Support''' Reoccurring event that consistently gets broad consensuses in favor of posting year after year, with notably fewer and fewer oppose !votes each time. The rationales for opposing from Andrew and Mvolz are unconvincing per Masem's responses to them. With respect to Brandmeister, I don't think we need to arbitrarily wait a few decades just to decide if it should be ITN/R. I may not personally care enough about the Game Awards to watch them, but I can't deny that an enormous number of people do, and most any argument against posting TGA also applies to just about any ITN/R award show. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 15:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
== Add ] to ITNR ==
:'''Support''' per Vanilla Wizard and others above. ~~ ] (]) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' per Vanilla Wizard as well. I also personally don't care about this, but enough other people do, and it has been regularly featured. ] (]) 19:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== RD: ]? ==
As , every edition of the Tour de France Femmes has appeared at ITN since the race began in 2022, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be an entry at ].


Does anyone want a second look at ]? I think this wikibio was already ready for RD within the 7-day nomination period. Thanks. --] (]) 13:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 15:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I assumed it was INTR already. ] (]) 15:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' demonstrated news coverage and wp article quality for three years running. Also good to balance with the men's Tour de France. ] (]) 15:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''', also assumed it was ITNR already. ] (] · ]) 15:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Kcmastrpc. ] (]) 15:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as original commenter at ITNC. ] (]) 21:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' ITNR is for articles that repeatedly demonstrate they meet ITNQUALITY and have been posted multiple times previously. The TdFF meets these criteria, having been posted all 3 years so far. ]] (]) 10:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' -] (]) 16:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Added to ITNR''' per the clear consensus above. ] (]) 17:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)


:I have no general problem with ], but a late ] concern was raised there too, making me pause, but there's no ] either. —] (]) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== HELP I ACCIDENTALLY SNOW CLOSES ITN ==
::Thank you for looking into this nom. I raised that WP:1E concern. Not sure if my edits were enough to fix that. Oh, well... --] (]) 23:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::If the 1E concern was raised earlier, and no AfD was filed, I'd have been more inclined to overlook it. But with the being raised late, and the 7 days having passed, I decided to be conservative and not IAR. Otherwise, I had no opinion on the page's notability. —] (]) 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


==Delays==
HELP PLEASE I ACCIDENTALLY DID THAT IT WAS MY FIRST TIME TRYING AND I MESSED UP ] (]) 14:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
=== Delays in consensus check ===
:{{U|Ion.want.uu}} for future reference, if you use {{tl|Archive top}} you also need to use {{tl|Archive bottom}} (otherwise it affects the whole rest of the page). That being said, seems quite soon to close that, and looks like someone has reverted your close. ]] (]) 16:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

:] is everyone's friend. —] (]) 16:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Due to delays, some entries were being lost. Vide Georgia and Estlink. A pity. ] (]) 03:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{section link|Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Candidates#Headers}} suggest marking the item with ''(Ready)''. —] (]) 09:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Can anyone mark or just an administrator? ] (]) 15:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Anyone can. ~~ ] (]) 16:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

=== Delays in picture update ===
The bold articles in all the current blurbs seem to have usable lead pictures. Why are we still showing a picture of Jimmy Carter now that it's the bottom blurb? Is it just the holiday season? ]🐉(]) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:A New Orleans image was pulled because it was misidentified as part of the ramming scene (]). Otherwise, one can always make suggestions at ]. —] (]) 00:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

== Terrorism and shootings ==
I would like to encourage discussion on whether linking mass shootings to 'terrorism' should be considered a valid argument when evaluating a nomination. Despite the fact that there is no policy stating that terrorist attacks should be assigned higher significance, some editors regularly use it as a rationale to support or oppose nominations in the same way as ] is used for deadly events in general. If you think this is a valid argument, then this should become a policy; if not, it should be documented in an essay or added to ]. Either way, it should be elaborated somewhere. In my opinion, 'terrorism' should not be used as a valid argument because mass shootings result in the death of innocent people regardless of the motive, and there is no evidence that the ensuing response by authorities is stricter for terrorist attacks (in some countries with low terrorism incidence, authorities impose strict measures and security restrictions even after domestic shootings). Furthermore, there is a very thin line between people with mental health problems and terrorists (in principle, terrorists are mentally ill people). Your opinions are welcome.--] (]) 08:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|If you think this is a valid argument, then this should become a policy|q=yes}}: But ] is very open-ended: {{tq2|It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting.}} Ideally, we'd have more detailed general guidance, and not piecemeal rules. —] (]) 08:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Some editors literally hang on to that argument as if it's a rule written in stone, so something needs to be done to prevent it in future discussions. The 'terrorism' rationale is equivalent to ]. I agree with a more detailed general guideline (similarly, WP:MINIMUMDEATHS was added to ]).--] (]) 08:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Some editors literally hang on to that argument|q=yes}}: And if they did, the way ITNSIGNIF is currently worded, a closer should allow it, as there's very little that isn't subjective (save for core content policies e.g. ], ], ], ]).—] (]) 09:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I fear that what you say doesn't work in practice. How's the 'terrorism' rationale different than 'minimum deaths' or 'event related to a single country'? ITNSIGNIF covers those cases as well. The problem is that we're selective in (dis)allowing subjective opinions.--] (]) 09:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Of recent memory, most !voters don't directly mention a minimum (anymore?), and the one's that do tyoically get rebutted with "there's no minimum". "Single country" <u>is</u> codified at ], so I guess you're arguing for a similar one-off exception? —] (]) 09:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yes, that's probably because WP:MINIMUMDEATHS was added to WP:HOWITN and 'single country' is already at WP:INCDONT. Nothing prevents us from doing the same with 'terrorism' if the majority think it's not a valid argument to support or oppose a nomination.--] (]) 09:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::] is an essay, so you have more freedom to edit that (frankly, I think that's an easier route, and see if a related shortcut resonates or not.) —] (]) 12:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:The word "terrorism" has lost its more concrete meaning in recent years, with the word thrown around any time there is violence against others. There is actually (at least in the US as in other countries) a legal aspect of "terrorism" as if a crime is considered by law enforcement agencies, they are often granted additional powers to assure the terrorism threat is ended quickly. But that's often a claim made by non-enforcement officials within the first hours of such events , people like mayors of the cities affected. We absolutely should not assure that just because "terrorism" has been attached to a crime that it is actually terrorism (and thus not heighten the reason to post), unless we have affirmation from authoritative agencies that they consider it an act of terrorism; even then, not all such acts of terrorism are always significant. So I agree that trying to claim significance because some non-authority people claimed it was terrorism, is equivalent to trying to justify significance based on MINIMUMDEATHS. ] (]) 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Masem opposed the ], writing {{tq|"a single death is not significant to post as a story, unless it was determined to be an act of terrorism"}}. These rationales are based on both MINIMUMDEATHS and terrorism as concepts. Have they changed their mind or what? ]🐉(]) 20:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Of course not. There is no current authorative statement that that was terrorism related, in comparison to the New Orleans event. As such, it should be treated as a domestic crime, which then with only one death and destruction limited to the truck itself, plus the likelihood this was a suicide, is something we shouldn't be trying to highlight at ITN. And to clarify, my concern around MINIMUMDEATHs as a means of pleading a reason for posting is that even if the event exceeds the MINIMUMDEATHs threshold, its not always a suitable reason to post. For example, we do no post routine deaths from annual flooding im SE asia which often number in the hundreds to thousands, primarily because those are unfortunately routine. ] (]) 20:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: The OP doesn't like these concepts being used {{tq|"as a rationale to support or oppose nominations"}}. Masem's position seems to be that it's ok when he does it. So, you guys don't seem to agree. My view is that such complexity and sophistry is unwise per ]. ]🐉(]) 21:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think there is a distinction between terrorist attacks and "lone wolf" mass shootings - the first ones are more likely to have longer-term relevance and impact (e.g. the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack (12 dead) is still widely remembered, while the lone wolf ] (14 dead) is now, I would wager, mostly forgotten outside Switzerland). A terrorist attack committed in the name of an ideology (e.g. Islamism, but also e.g. Communism in the 1970s, e.g. by the RAF in Germany) has a higher potential to stoke fear among the broader population than lone wolf massacre. I would agree with Masem, however, that the word terrorism is (like so many others) widely over-used nowadays, so we should await official confirmation, or at least usage of the word by reputable media, before accepting it as an argument. ] (]) 20:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::I think that’s something that cannot be easily generalised, especially in countries with very low incidence of terrorist attacks. For instance, the ] has had long-term impact and is still very well remembered even though it wasn’t a terrorist attack.--] (]) 21:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Sure, I wasn't saying that other mass shootings can't be posted. ] (]) 21:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Maybe my position wasn't entirely clear. I think that editors should be able to use "terrorist attack" in their argumentation (as it can help assess significance), but whether a blurb gets posted remains subject to finding a consensus - and this will depend on other aspects too (including whether a certain event is rare or not in the country/region in question). ] (]) 21:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:31, 4 January 2025

Please note:Please do not post error reports for Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.

Please do not suggest items for, or complain about items on Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ITN/C. Thank you.

Please do not write disagreements about article content here. Instead, post them to WP:CEN. Thank you.
This talk page is for general discussions on In the news.
Please note: The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the In the news process. It is not a place to ask general questions, report errors, or to submit news items for inclusion.

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115


This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Archiving icon
ITNR archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25


Proposal: Remove "Israel-Hamas war" and "Israeli invasion of Lebanon" and replace them with "Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)" to the Ongoing section

Currently, Israeli military activities are taking up two places in the Ongoing section. Given that both the Israel-Hamas war and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon fall under the Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) article, I propose replacing them both with the Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) article. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon, while certainly notable and ongoing (despite the ceasefire back on 26 November), doesn't reflect that right now the news is giving more coverage to neighboring Syria (not to mention the Israel's invasion of Syria). The nice thing about the Middle Eastern Crisis article is that it covers all of the events and consolidates them into a single article.

At the same time, I recognize that the Middle Eastern Crisis article may require cleanup. But the issue still stands that the ongoing section has two different articles that are arguably part of the same general topic. Imagine if alongside the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we also had the 2024 Kursk offensive article listed separately.

Please forgive me if this is the wrong place for this, because I read the nomination steps section of the article and felt that this doesn't seem like a usual nomination that applied (the "the date of the event" would be 7 October 2024, but the page only goes as far back as December 9th 2024). JasonMacker (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This should be proposed on the main WP:ITNC page, not here.
That said, that Middle Eastern crisis page is a lot of OR by combining several different, very unrelated concepts into a single page, and thus does not represent the quality we expect. There is a well-established connection (from sources) between the Israel-Hamas war and the Isreal-Lebonon aspects but I don't think we have a good page that covers all that. Masem (t) 01:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Can you explain what "different, very unrelated concepts" you're referring to? If you have suggestions as to how to improve the Middle Eastern crisis article, please offer them at that page's talk page.
Saying that it "should be proposed on the main WP:ITNC page" doesn't answer my question of how this proposal should even be formatted. I'm not asking for a specific event to be mentioned. I'm asking a question about the structure of the ongoing section. I'm not denying that the Middle Eastern Crisis article has cleanup issues. I'm saying that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon had a ceasefire a month ago, while the Israeli invasion of Syria (the current one, not the 1967-present one) happened last week and is currently getting far more news coverage compared to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (Compare this to this and see which one is getting more recent news articles). This observation, combined with the fact that the Middle Eastern Crisis article covers both Israeli invasions of those two countries (alongside Israel's invasion of the Gaza Strip), makes it more suitable for the ongoing section. If Israel invades Jordan today, does that mean we're going to have to add that as a separate ongoing event, making Israeli military activities three different ongoing articles? I think two is too many. Just having a single "Middle Eastern Crisis" article makes more sense. I say this as someone who made some contributions to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon article. JasonMacker (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think any article entitled "Middle Eastern crisis" is viable for the main page. It's just too high level and involves several unrelated or loosly related conflicts. Really, I'm not even sure such an article should even exist as per Masem. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Middle East crisis is far too non-specific. Secretlondon (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Per Masem, "Middle Eastern crisis" is mostly connecting multiple loosely related conflicts, and not necessarily a good ITN topic. Agree that the invasion of Lebanon should be replaced by the invasion of Syria as the most active one. The invasions of Gaza and Lebanon can definitely be connected, but that of Syria (which could be called a preventive war at best) can't really be seen as another theater of the same war. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Five entries

Why not? ArionStar (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

ITN's box must be balanced with the TFA box on the main page. Between the RD and Ongoing lines, we generally can only have four entries unless one blurb is super-short. Masem (t) 02:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:ITNBALANCE. "On this day" could alternatively be shortened, but the last ITN blurb is typically quite old anyways, barring a change in ITN approval patterns. —Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
It's five now. ArionStar (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

ITNR addition proposal: The Game Awards

The annual ceremony of The Game Awards has been posted for four years in a row (Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates/December 2021, Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates/December 2022, Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates/December 2023 and Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates/December 2024. I know that among other editors Rhain usually makes sure these are of quality after the ceremony is completed, so most of the quality issues are quickly resolved.
Key point is that with each of these cases, we do see coverage beyond the video game media of the show's results (that is, meeting the ITN aspect). I know that there are multiple other award events in the video game area, but of those, neither the DICE awards or the GDCA awards gain major press coverage, and while the BAFTA Games awards can see some coverage, that event also has some limited participation (eg some categories exist only for British games), whereas The Game Awards remain open for any published game. The BAFTA Games also lacks the type of ceremony of similar scale (its more a cut and dry ceremony), and its article doesn't see the same type of quality due to that, making it harder to be a suggestion.
If added there is only the one ceremony per year and the blurb should be used to identify the game of the year winner. This would be the first instance for an ITNR video game related category, not that I can see any other video game ITNR coming any time soon (closest would be one of the esport tourneys but those have had problems with quality updates as well as type of coverage they get). — Masem (t) 14:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now I think it needs more time to mature and establish itself as the highest game award, particularly since, AFAIK, there hasn't been the top tier video game award before that to consider that would have honored the 1980s or the 1990s era, for instance. Most awards in that regard at WP:ITNR are several decades old, with the "youngest" probably being Abel Prize (21 years now). The Game Awards#Reception also leaves some room to wait. Brandmeister 15:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Support, clear that it meets ITN standards in previous years, and it will be in the news. Provided the quality is good enough, I'm happy enough to have this as reoccuring. Lee Vilenski 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support (as a primary contributor). Been waiting for this one. I think the Game Awards established itself as the "main" video game awards years ago, and has only continued to solidify its lead each year. The often mixed critical response is no different (perhaps even more positive) than those to the Emmys, Grammys, and Oscars, and certainly has no impact on their significance or newsworthiness. I think its last four ITN appearances prove that. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NOTPROMOTION as the show is a promotional trade show dominated by advertising, hype and log-rolling. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    • By that metric so are the Oscars, Emmys, Grammy, the Super Bowl, the World Series, World Cup etc. As long as the underlying event itself is not something of corporate promotion, like in this case a large independent body of ppl in an industry voting on the winner of an award, that's not promotional. All the promotional stuff attached to the presentation are not aspects of why these events are ITNR — Masem (t) 16:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Isn't every award show? Lee Vilenski 18:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Football (association) kits are literally billboards lol Howard the Duck (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    I mean, yes but then the only exciting bit about the Superbowl is the half-time advertisements... Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Andrew Davidson on what part of WP:NOTPROMO are you basing your argument? Ed  19:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Its general prohibition of "Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations". The prohibitions of endorsements and puffery also seem relevant. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    “Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable.” — I'm not so sure that this is applicable to this conversation. If NOTPROMO really were applicable to the page about TGA, the page should have a cleanup tag or be nominated for deletion. But the article is fine every year, and it'd be very hard to make a compelling case that the subject matter itself inherently fails NOTPROMO.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Where exactly is the advertising/puffery in say The Game Awards 2024, which is the scope of what we are talking about. Lee Vilenski 17:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I can think that one might consider that 75% of the actual show is trailers for upcoming games, however, our coverage of this facet is one brief section of listing such games, or commentary from third party sources on the imbalance between game reveals and actual ceremony. Which is minimizing or eliminating the promotional elements to emphasis the actual awards and the rest of the presentation. Masem (t) 17:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support although I would have waited for 5 years... Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Of limited general interest. Mvolz (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Last show had a viewership of 154 million, far exceeding the viewership of the latest Oscars, Grammy, or Emmy program, and falls in the same ballpark as the Super Bowl (200million last time around). Masem (t) 12:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Support Reoccurring event that consistently gets broad consensuses in favor of posting year after year, with notably fewer and fewer oppose !votes each time. The rationales for opposing from Andrew and Mvolz are unconvincing per Masem's responses to them. With respect to Brandmeister, I don't think we need to arbitrarily wait a few decades just to decide if it should be ITN/R. I may not personally care enough about the Game Awards to watch them, but I can't deny that an enormous number of people do, and most any argument against posting TGA also applies to just about any ITN/R award show.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Support per Vanilla Wizard and others above. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Support per Vanilla Wizard as well. I also personally don't care about this, but enough other people do, and it has been regularly featured. Khuft (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

RD: Dorthy Moxley?

Does anyone want a second look at Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates/December 2024#(Ready) RD: Dorthy Moxley? I think this wikibio was already ready for RD within the 7-day nomination period. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no general problem with WP:IAR, but a late WP:1E concern was raised there too, making me pause, but there's no WP:AFD either. —Bagumba (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this nom. I raised that WP:1E concern. Not sure if my edits were enough to fix that. Oh, well... --PFHLai (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
If the 1E concern was raised earlier, and no AfD was filed, I'd have been more inclined to overlook it. But with the being raised late, and the 7 days having passed, I decided to be conservative and not IAR. Otherwise, I had no opinion on the page's notability. —Bagumba (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Delays

Delays in consensus check

Due to delays, some entries were being lost. Vide Georgia and Estlink. A pity. ArionStar (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates § Headers suggest marking the item with (Ready). —Bagumba (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Can anyone mark or just an administrator? ArionStar (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyone can. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Delays in picture update

The bold articles in all the current blurbs seem to have usable lead pictures. Why are we still showing a picture of Jimmy Carter now that it's the bottom blurb? Is it just the holiday season? Andrew🐉(talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

A New Orleans image was pulled because it was misidentified as part of the ramming scene (Talk:2025 New Orleans truck attack#Infobox image). Otherwise, one can always make suggestions at WP:ERRORS. —Bagumba (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Terrorism and shootings

I would like to encourage discussion on whether linking mass shootings to 'terrorism' should be considered a valid argument when evaluating a nomination. Despite the fact that there is no policy stating that terrorist attacks should be assigned higher significance, some editors regularly use it as a rationale to support or oppose nominations in the same way as WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is used for deadly events in general. If you think this is a valid argument, then this should become a policy; if not, it should be documented in an essay or added to WP:ITNCDONT. Either way, it should be elaborated somewhere. In my opinion, 'terrorism' should not be used as a valid argument because mass shootings result in the death of innocent people regardless of the motive, and there is no evidence that the ensuing response by authorities is stricter for terrorist attacks (in some countries with low terrorism incidence, authorities impose strict measures and security restrictions even after domestic shootings). Furthermore, there is a very thin line between people with mental health problems and terrorists (in principle, terrorists are mentally ill people). Your opinions are welcome.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If you think this is a valid argument, then this should become a policy: But WP:ITNSIGNIF is very open-ended:

It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting.

Ideally, we'd have more detailed general guidance, and not piecemeal rules. —Bagumba (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Some editors literally hang on to that argument as if it's a rule written in stone, so something needs to be done to prevent it in future discussions. The 'terrorism' rationale is equivalent to WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. I agree with a more detailed general guideline (similarly, WP:MINIMUMDEATHS was added to WP:HOWITN).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Some editors literally hang on to that argument: And if they did, the way ITNSIGNIF is currently worded, a closer should allow it, as there's very little that isn't subjective (save for core content policies e.g. WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP).—Bagumba (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I fear that what you say doesn't work in practice. How's the 'terrorism' rationale different than 'minimum deaths' or 'event related to a single country'? ITNSIGNIF covers those cases as well. The problem is that we're selective in (dis)allowing subjective opinions.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Of recent memory, most !voters don't directly mention a minimum (anymore?), and the one's that do tyoically get rebutted with "there's no minimum". "Single country" is codified at WP:ITNCDONT, so I guess you're arguing for a similar one-off exception? —Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that's probably because WP:MINIMUMDEATHS was added to WP:HOWITN and 'single country' is already at WP:INCDONT. Nothing prevents us from doing the same with 'terrorism' if the majority think it's not a valid argument to support or oppose a nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:HOWITN is an essay, so you have more freedom to edit that (frankly, I think that's an easier route, and see if a related shortcut resonates or not.) —Bagumba (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The word "terrorism" has lost its more concrete meaning in recent years, with the word thrown around any time there is violence against others. There is actually (at least in the US as in other countries) a legal aspect of "terrorism" as if a crime is considered by law enforcement agencies, they are often granted additional powers to assure the terrorism threat is ended quickly. But that's often a claim made by non-enforcement officials within the first hours of such events , people like mayors of the cities affected. We absolutely should not assure that just because "terrorism" has been attached to a crime that it is actually terrorism (and thus not heighten the reason to post), unless we have affirmation from authoritative agencies that they consider it an act of terrorism; even then, not all such acts of terrorism are always significant. So I agree that trying to claim significance because some non-authority people claimed it was terrorism, is equivalent to trying to justify significance based on MINIMUMDEATHS. Masem (t) 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Masem opposed the Trump International Hotel explosion, writing "a single death is not significant to post as a story, unless it was determined to be an act of terrorism". These rationales are based on both MINIMUMDEATHS and terrorism as concepts. Have they changed their mind or what? Andrew🐉(talk) 20:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Of course not. There is no current authorative statement that that was terrorism related, in comparison to the New Orleans event. As such, it should be treated as a domestic crime, which then with only one death and destruction limited to the truck itself, plus the likelihood this was a suicide, is something we shouldn't be trying to highlight at ITN. And to clarify, my concern around MINIMUMDEATHs as a means of pleading a reason for posting is that even if the event exceeds the MINIMUMDEATHs threshold, its not always a suitable reason to post. For example, we do no post routine deaths from annual flooding im SE asia which often number in the hundreds to thousands, primarily because those are unfortunately routine. Masem (t) 20:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The OP doesn't like these concepts being used "as a rationale to support or oppose nominations". Masem's position seems to be that it's ok when he does it. So, you guys don't seem to agree. My view is that such complexity and sophistry is unwise per WP:CREEP. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I think there is a distinction between terrorist attacks and "lone wolf" mass shootings - the first ones are more likely to have longer-term relevance and impact (e.g. the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack (12 dead) is still widely remembered, while the lone wolf Zug massacre (14 dead) is now, I would wager, mostly forgotten outside Switzerland). A terrorist attack committed in the name of an ideology (e.g. Islamism, but also e.g. Communism in the 1970s, e.g. by the RAF in Germany) has a higher potential to stoke fear among the broader population than lone wolf massacre. I would agree with Masem, however, that the word terrorism is (like so many others) widely over-used nowadays, so we should await official confirmation, or at least usage of the word by reputable media, before accepting it as an argument. Khuft (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I think that’s something that cannot be easily generalised, especially in countries with very low incidence of terrorist attacks. For instance, the Belgrade school shooting has had long-term impact and is still very well remembered even though it wasn’t a terrorist attack.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Sure, I wasn't saying that other mass shootings can't be posted. Khuft (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe my position wasn't entirely clear. I think that editors should be able to use "terrorist attack" in their argumentation (as it can help assess significance), but whether a blurb gets posted remains subject to finding a consensus - and this will depend on other aspects too (including whether a certain event is rare or not in the country/region in question). Khuft (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)