Wikipedia talk:In the news

Currently 2 options: RD or RD/blurb. How about a 3rd option: RD/photo but no blurb?

 * The recent RD posting for William Anders, who took the Earthrise photograph is a good example of option 3 as a good compromise. Why? The photograph (Earthrise) is more famous than the photographer. And because no consensus was reached to blurb the RD for Anders then the photograph of Earthrise could’ve been posted under ITN. Then for the RD posting : William Anders (Earthrise photographer). This is not a blurb. It’s a compromise: halfway between an RD and a RD/blurb. Another example of this 3rd option when opinion is evenly split: post the RD photo at the top of the ITN section, but no blurb. This is already done on the German and French Wikipedia sites. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning oppose because it would be counterintuitive to direct the viewer's attention from a prominent photo in the top left to a far less prominent name slot in the lines below. If someone is important enough for an image associated with them to appear in ITN, they should get a blurb. Otherwise, RD.  Bremps  ...  18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, the first one could be Donald Sutherland. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If he wasn't rolling off this Carousel of Souls in a few hours, yeah, in theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Superb InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is actually a good proposal. I remember proposing it a few years ago. Unfortunately, it did not find too many takers. Ideally I would want to see the admins having a liberty to pick and choose images from blurb articles (which they already do) and the RD carousel. Ktin (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the previous times it has been rejected. The photo illustrates the most recent blurb that we can illustrate, directing attention to it - RD is a supplement that is less important than a blurb (by definition and design), also RD vs blurb is contentious enough as it is without adding a third option to argue over. Finally, if photos of anything other than the deceased person were permitted, this would make visual artists a super-class of people who are more notable than others contrary to NPOV. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, though it didn't go well when I actually tried to do it once (the overwrought reaction near the bottom was splendid, you'd think I'd replaced the Main Page with porn images). Here is what happened at ERRORS, and here is the discussion at this venue, which ended up around 50% Support/Oppose. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you read the reaction from readers at errors you will note widespread confusion and objection. Saying that someone whose isn't important enough to blurb is more important than any of the news stories that did get a blurb just doesn't make sense. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I read the link Black Kite provides to the error page. These issues will not be resolved. The problem is that Recent Deaths falls under the In The News section. So usually consensus will not be reached on RD/blurb or RD/photo without creating a logjam. The only way to avoid this logjam is that Recent Deaths should have its own section on the Main Page separate from the In The News section. Just like the German Wikipedia does on their main page (eg. Kürzlich Verstorbene). - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The photo slot is for actual in the news items, not old people who've sadly died. If there were a proposal to start having "sticky" RDs that stay for longer than the usual time slot, and/or. "necrology" section with an optional photo that's separate from the main ITN photo, as fr-wiki has, then I might be on board. But photo RDs in the current setup are a nonstarter. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * IAR I see no harm in having a photo of an RD whom is reasonably significant (not blurb-level but still more than most run-of-the-mill BLPs featured), but only if the main photo hasn't been rotated in a while (like, 48 hrs) and there's no good photo for the other blurbs that are present or haven't already had a photo. but this is with the expectation that this type of photo would be changed out in a short period of time (24 hr) by other possible photos. --M asem (t) 18:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support An excellent idea. Note that in addition to Black Kite's precedent mentioned above, this also occurred in February 2020. Davey2116 (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Aha! Thank you for that. I didn’t know about the Kirk Douglas photo on ITN. Setting precedent again. I think if we had the option RD/photo, this maybe would quell the excessive rancor amongst us ITN editors/voters. And find a better solution to this process. -Trauma Novitiate (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support because why not try it out. Levivich (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with others above that this is a good idea and so we should try it more often. Shelley Duvall seems a good example – a reasonably famous movie star like Kirk Douglas, with a distinctive face.  I couldn't place the name so easily as I confuse it with other Shelleys like Shelley Winters and Shelley Long.  And a picture is worth a thousand words. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose largely per Thryduulf, though I would not be opposed to a somewhat stricter version of Masem's proposal, namely that in the somewhat rare case that none of the blurbs have an appropriate free image, than an RD photo would be appropriate if there is consensus to do so. Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Criteria for death blurbs?
For context, a death blurb is a blurb in ITN which reports that a notable individual has died. For a recent example: "American baseball player Willie Mays dies at the age of 93.". Because of the existence of the Recent Deaths (RD) section, a death blurb is often paired with an RD entry. Currently, death blurbs are a contentious topic among the editors of ITN. Some editors have expressed full opposition to death blurbs, saying that if there is an RD section then the death blurb is redundant. Another argument against death blurbs is that in Wikipedia's current state, death blurbs form an arbitrary two-tiered system for reporting deaths. However, there are some editors in favour of posting death blurbs, especially for highly notable deaths, such as Henry Kissinger. I suggest that if we are going to publish death blurbs, we should establish a clear set of criteria for when a death blurb should be published. As a starting point, I suggest the following example criteria:


 * If a death meets any of the following criteria, it is sufficiently notable to post a death blurb:
 * The death is of a head of state, head of government, or other notable government official in a position of power, such as Ebrahim Raisi's death by helicopter crash.
 * The death is unusual or notable in itself, such as Aaron Bushnell's death by self-immolation.

--MtPenguinMonster (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. is already the case.
 * We have a "transformative" criterion, which no one knows what it means. BilboBeggins (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The "transformative" criterion has been removed for a while. It is "major figure" which is still subjective, but less so, in that it should be readily apparent from sources used within the content of the article that themselves explain why the person is a great figure within their field. — M asem (t) 14:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I missed the removal, as far as I remember it was always transformative. Was it removed as the result of the discussion we started last year? BilboBeggins (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well before then. I also had thought it had been there (as it definitely was in our guidelines at one point) but was removed at least 2 or more years ago. M asem (t) 17:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it was still used last year in discussion as an argument. BilboBeggins (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lots of arguments are used, even if they are not mentioned at WP:ITNCRIT or WP:ITNRDBLURB. Its absence means an admin should not apply any extra weight to the argument —Bagumba (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We've been blurbing upper-tier deaths since 2016, there's no time to start now. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am strongly against the proposed criteria in particular, and against narrowly-specified criteria in this area more generally, as a form of instruction creep. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I simply can't see this working. Are we not going to blurb Messi or Ronaldo when they pass? Besides, it would result in a lot of non blurb worthy deaths being posted. We don't need every repetition of the Enumclaw horse sex case to be posted.  Bremps  ...  18:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Change to ITNELECTIONS
WP:ITNELECTIONS currently reads: "Changes in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government.. Back in March, there was clear consensus to change this so it wasn't only restricted to changes in the holder of office, though no amendment seems to have been implemented. I suggest changing it to "Changes in or reappointments of the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government...", which seems to have had the most support in the previous discussion. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per my earlier suggestion, though probably a better wording would be "changes in, reelections or reappointments..., as reappointment may exclude reelection, usually being non-elective. Brandmeistertalk  08:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This does eliminate some ambiguity over what "reappointments" mean, though I think it would be ideal to try to find some catch-all phrase for ways in which someone could come to gain executive power, something like: "Decisions on who holds the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government..." though this still seems somewhat ambiguous to me. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Really we should just bump the old section back out of the archive and continue said discussion. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the entire discussion (with all three proposed amendments) or just the first section of it? Gödel2200 (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well you're saying there was consensus but no closure. Honestly, looking back there seemed to be consensus AGAINST said amendments, but I'm obviously not going to stop you if you believe discussion should continue. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There was consensus for some amendment to not restrict ITNR to only changes in the holder of the executive, but there wasn't an agreed upon solution, while the other two proposals didn't have consensus. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Seems reasonable. Even authoritarian extensions of rule are notable.  Bremps  ...  19:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Old man dies?
Common refrain whenever a person of disputed importance kicks the bucket at a ripe old age, sometimes well past their peaks. We would unambiguously benefit from a WP:OLDMANDIES, since the argument is repeatedly deployed, but I want all of your thoughts on whether the policy states that this is a valid or invalid argument. I'm leaning towards the latter.  Bremps  ...  02:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging @User:GenevieveDEon and @User:InedibleHulk as the two editors whose dispute inspired me to propose this.  Bremps  ...  03:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We need a way of preventing the inevitable pile-on of American editors (our largest cohort) telling us how wonderful a person every dead basketballer, bseballer and American footballer was. Give Ron Barassi a chance. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As I've suggested before, there is a mostly objective start to evaluating the "great figure" blurbs, that being the article has clear, in-depth coverage of the person's importance, legacy, and/or impact, sourced to good quality RSes, and clear to a reader outside the field in place within the article, and that doesn't mean just simply being famous or a household name, nor simply having a lot of awards, nor simply having impressive stats from their sport. That should eliminate the bulk of the vague handwaving that many attempted blurbs noms get. It is not fully objective as there could be such content but considered thin, or the content doesn't exist but editors are working to expand it with long-form obits, etc. I will note the last several blurbs over the last month have had this type of feature, so it seems to be on the right track. M asem (t) 04:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Notable non-American Ismail Kadare is what got us here. Maybe lose the blinders. Jessintime (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Or that sports person last week who no-one had heard of? Secretlondon (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've said it for dozens of people, some American, some wonderful, some neither. For me, at least, none of that matters. What matters is whether the proposed blurb goes Nationality-Job-Name dies at Age. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your repeated assertion that no-one had heard of Willie Mays, in the teeth of the evidence, is not helping your position. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Valid That's exactly what happens, most of the time. Sometimes it's a woman and sometimes we know a place and/or cause of death, but it's never much more than Old Someone Dies. I don't think I'm the sort of old man who needs some Mandy-lookin' guideline to tell me he has a point, though, so Oppose Codification Error. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:OMD is the quicker, less shouty and less likely to be misread as dirty laundry option, if something must sprout from this at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good call.  Bremps  ...  06:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's always room for more 80s synthpop. Black Kite (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Or just redirect to WP:HUMOR. —Bagumba (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's (usually) nothing newsworthy or funny about an old person dying. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've always AGFed that it was an attempt at humor. Otherwise it seems just plain insensitive. —Bagumba (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That really is the other issue - the more we see blurb shouts for RDs, the more insensitive comments we see while trying to argue the importance of a life/death, and in the immediate aftermath. Perhaps for that reason, having OMD link to a reasoned explanation would be valuable. Kingsif (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, either there is an "Old Man Dies" policy, and we all agree not to post the likes of Queen Elizabeth II dying, or there is no such policy, and we have to go through the grind of finding consensus via the ITN process - as for any other nomination to ITN. Option 3 would be to create a separate RD section, as several other Wikipedias have done, which would delegate the whole issue to those editors really caring about obituaries - but sadly this option has so far failed to gain traction. Khuft (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've definitely shifted to "only blurb if the death is the story", so I'd say OMD is a valid argument summary. Every concept has exceptions, so I don't think Khuft's all or nothing is a concern for when actual legends do pass. Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: I've just wracked my brain to come up with a currently-living legend who I think should incontrovertibly be posted just for dying, and the only one I could think of is Dolly Parton. So make of that what you will. Kingsif (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Paul McCartney? HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Mick Jagger. Or Patrick Stewart. Actually, probably William Shatner, too. BD2412  T 00:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * David Attenborough? Jimmy Carter? Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For a real surprise, Keith Richards. HiLo48 (talk)
 * He, Hulk Hogan and anyone else dubbed "The Immortal" have some potential shock value. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Professional wrestling is a bit, erm, fake though. Secretlondon (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not an endorsement, but so is acting. —Bagumba (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * thatsbait.gif Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So the issue with all of these is that they 1) would need better arguments for opposing than merely "old man dies." We know it's normal for old men to die, but so are lots of things. But 2) do we really want to have a discussion on each of these, just after they died, just how significant their work/role was? I don't think a WP:OMD page could really help all that much, as it doesn't solve this second issue at all. At least when people currently post "oppose-old man dies," we can just ignore them and read the messages with meat to them instead. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with Maplestrip that the underlying issues are the need for better arguments, and the difficulty of having a well-sourced and concise discussion of someone's significance in the immediate aftermath of their death. Stylistically, I dislike the use of 'Old Man Dies' in place of a !vote in particular. It harms the readability of the discussion - broadly speaking, we expect editors' initial submissions in this discussion to start with 'Oppose', 'Neutral', 'Support', or similar. Starting it with a terse and slightly flippant summary of the story is less helpful. "'Old Man Dies' is a routine story and doesn't need to be given a blurb" is fine as an argument, and I sometimes agree with it, but it would be conducive to good, readable debate if we all acted like sensible editors rather than daytime talk show guests trying to pull out 'zingers'. Related to this is the problem that conducting our debates in clichés is a process with diminishing returns. I've argued against references to the journalistic 'bus plunge' concept in the past for the same reason - we should be treating stories on their merits, not on how they relate to canned concepts which encode a lot of cultural bias. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The old-man-dies argument is equivalent to opposing an item relating to a single country, which is listed on WP:ITNCDONT. Perhaps we can consider adding this as well in order to easily dismiss such unproductive votes in the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're similar, much less equivalent. OMD isn't in the Oppose family. It means someone wants an RD nom posted as a regular RD, if at all. Something like EXAMPLIANSGOHOME is nowhere near as Neutral, largely because there's no other place for uninational news. I think it's possible you might just want these sorts of votes more easily dismissed in the future because they've been producing results you don't like (not that there's anything wrong with that). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not just follow the aforementioned WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY precedent where we have two opposing essays? I'd be willing to help draft NOTOLDMANDIES, and even OLDMANDIES though I don't agree with it.. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You mention WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY; but putting those in the same paragraph as the proposed WP:NOTOLDMANDIES and WP:OLDMANDIES draws my attention to the problem we get when words are converted to all-capitals run together without spaces, in that where do we imagine the missing spaces should be? Consider WP:OLDMANDIES - this might be construed as "Old Mandies", referring to several people named Mandy who are now drawing their pensions. Or perhaps Gary Oldman is no longer with us. You get the same thing with web domains except that it's all lowercase. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think InedibleHulk brought that point up above, referring to the proposal as some Mandy-lookin' guideline. Either way, this is why Template:About exists and WP:OMD would circumvent this issue, while also sounding more respectful. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think that having a page titled WP:OMD is not actually a bad idea. All it has to say is "this is not a fully-formed argument." That's pretty much the full text we should put on this page. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose OMD is a thought-terminating cliché and so encourages the opposing camps to chant such slogans at each other rather than presenting evidence and intelligently analysing it. It also seems deliberately rude and unpleasant, contrary to the ancient precept, de mortuis nil nisi bonum. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mightn't change how it seems to you or anyone else, but I can promise you all I've never deliberately used it dickishly. When presented with evidence of news that a man or woman has died at the age of 70-120 and nothing else, it's just beyond my poor brain to summarize any plainer.
 * It is intended to terminate any immediate thought of posting everyday news of some old people dying and nothing else while using RD for other old people who too simply die. It has never stopped the next voter from weighing in with either reasonable counterargument or a contrary cliché ("global icon", "living legend", "one of the best") and sometimes leads to longer talks in less constrictive venues like this.
 * All that aside, it's not clear (to me) whether you're supporting or opposing the creation of an OMD guideline. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ... but I can promise you all I've never deliberately used it dickishly: As I said earlier, I had always AGfed on this.  Now that there's been discussion on OMD, individiuals can decide if WP:RESPONSIBLE applies or not. —Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You said you AGFed it as an attempt at humour, not dickishness. I tried to clarify then, as I'm about to try now, it's not funny. If you're the sort of person who tends to view plain insensitivity as dickishness rather than distant objectivity, yes, I can see how this makes me look like the sort of person who'd do (what I consider) truly dickish things in an RD nom, like bring up the subject's moral, legal or artistic failings from years ago or oppose for all of their moral, legal or artistic ventures having been (arguable) failures. Sorry for that. From here on, rather than risk offensively amusing, bemusing or demusing anyone, I'll cast such votes as "OMD" alone, then follow up with anything else (if applicable). My Covered By Ongoings will also now appear CBO. If someone asks, another regular can explain how it's short for something. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The relevant bullet point at WP:ITNRDBLURB is "Major figure", so "not a major enough figure" (it's unfortunate the community doesn't have more objective criteria) could be a counter. —Bagumba (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it's just not for me. I think a major figure (as I understand that crew) can die just as plain and simple a death as anyone. It's that I "go not gently" against, never the "hills and valleys" of life itself (as "a major dick" might). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If I am understanding what "Old man dies" here means correctly, it is just a shorthand way of saying: "While this persons life may have been very notable, their death in and of itself was not, and I think that means this should not be blurbed." According to WP:ITNRDBLURB: "The death of major figures may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb." This in no way invalidates the argument "The death was not notable in and of itself" as a reason to oppose (as some editors claim). All this says is that blurbs will be decided when "there is consensus" to post. Essentially, this allows two opposed viewpoints to have equal validity, which I think is a sub-optimal situation. Ideally, I think it would be best to hold a discussion on whether this status-quo should change. In the meantime, I don't have much of a stance one way or another on the use of "Old man dies", but it certainly could be misinterpreted, so I personally would refrain from using it. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The death was not notable in and of itself: Is this referring to the cause of death, or the overall reaction after the death? —Bagumba (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Basically the cause of death or whatever effects the death may have, but some editors would also use the argument regardless of the reaction after the death. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think people who argue that the major figure criteria was met accept that the cause of death was not notable. Perhaps you are arguing that their obituaries and coverage of their death is not prominent, and conclude that they must not be a major figure? —Bagumba (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the people who support RD blurbs usually accept that the cause of death was not notable. But other people can use this exact point, that the cause of death was not notable, as a reason to oppose, and both viewpoints are perfectly valid. What I am saying is that it is not ideal to let both opposed viewpoints have equal validity. Gödel2200 (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But other people can use this exact point, that the cause of death was not notable, as a reason to oppose, and both viewpoints are perfectly valid.: I don't believe they are both valid. As written, WP:ITNRDBLURB allows blurbs for "Death as the main story" or "Major figures"; it does not require that both are necessarily met. Thus, "non-notable cause of death" arguments should be discounted, as it's not the only path to blurbing a death. (This is somewhat similar to how "not WP:ITNR" is not an accepted reason to oppose blurbing a recurring event".) —Bagumba (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNRDBLURB of course allows for the deaths of major figures to be posted, but it does not require that discussion focus on whether the person has a large enough legacy to be posted. All it says is that the deaths of major figures "may" merit a blurb, and says that they are usually posted if "there is consensus that the death merits a blurb." This "consensus" certainly could include arguments in opposition due to something similar to "the death was not notable in and of itself"; there is nothing explicitly disallowing this. Gödel2200 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Whi h is essential why there is this huge issue, because we make no attempt (inadvently I believe) to define how to treat a BLP as a major figure. We're it to me, my metric starts with the existence of a substantial, well sourced Legacy or Impact section, as to make it clear to the reader coming from the main page if why this person was listed as a blurb. But in plenty of ITNC nominations for urbs, some think that just bring famous or well known is sufficient, which I think has major bias problems and is far from objective. We likely should should try to put some reasonable expectations of what a great figure should demonstrate rather that leaving that nebulous term out there. M asem (t) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ...we make no attempt (inadvently I believe) to define how to treat a BLP as a major figure: There have been plenty of attempts—its a perrenial topic. They just haven't led to a consensus more objective than the "sui generis basis" status quo.—Bagumba (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's be honest - the REAL issue here is we have more or less no criteria at all for who qualifies as worthy of a blurb when it isn't a "death as the main story" situation. I will say, again, for the umpteenth time, the best solution is to just allow such blurbs for when death is the main story. We have RD, we can list most deaths there. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if there is no scope for multiple paragraphs of sourced prose (excluding quotes) about the person's death then that's a good sign that the death shouldn't be blurbed. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless the death is the main story (like an assassination), there's no requirement to have multiple paragraphs about the deaths for a blurb. There should be multiple paragraphs to justify the "great figure" reasoning for a blurb posting (which likely will include reactions from others in that field on news of the death to justify why the person was a great figure), and there of course should be an update to source the death, but many great figures die absent a prolonged battle with health or the like, giving no reason to have a huge block of text about the death specifically. M asem (t) 12:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And if it were a requirement, some would try to game the system with an WP:EXAMPLEFARM of thoughts and prayers from social media posts. —Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the major figures criteria of WP:ITNRDBLURB says that it is determined on a sui generis basis. —Bagumba (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And this then means that it becomes a vote by the handful of editors that post their opinions at ITN. with the admins getting a supervote.
 * The clear fix for this is to give all such deaths a short description, as other languages do. The blurb/no blurb issue then largely disappears.  Without any description, RD entries such as Ismail Kadare are useless because they are just a name that most of us don't recognise.  His short description is just two words: "Albanian writer".  How hard is that? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea to me. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly surprised we don't do that.  Bremps  ...  05:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for an article quality test for ITN
If an article about an event can't account for who, what, where, when, why and how, then it cannot be posted. Exceptions would include where a) one factor is inherently unknowable quickly and has been described by WP:RS as such, and b) WP:IAR. This would be a purely exclusionary test, passing it would just be one hurdle (along with notability). Call it WP:5W1H. Any thoughts?  Bremps  ...  03:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are RDs (the usual kind) exempt? Because I have no idea where, how or why Sika died, and I'm the guy who knows Sika stuff. This newfangled hurdle would surely be too much for a great many others. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was more thinking of fires and tornadoes and insurgencies. Yes, usually a family would want to keep some privacy so RD should be exempt.  Bremps  ...  05:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Insurgents will tend to want keep certain things quiet, too, I suspect (as will counterinsurgents). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, the cat's out of the bag after the attack. I don't think ITN has the capability to unearth something still being planned.  Bremps  ...  06:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Whatcat's out after the what-have-you, but the question of whodunnit often remains indefinitely, even if sources generally link them to a named group. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And while ITN certainly can't unearth a plot (WP:NOR), it can certainly relay it, as it did with the 2022 German coup d'état plot. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In terms of Bremps point, there is a far larger problem beyond ITN with excessively detailed treating of news with editors creating articles on any random news event that fails NOTNEWS and NEVENT, which in turn creates all this ITNCs about disasters (natural and man-made). Such articles are usually hastily made and lack context and impact. It goes back to the fact we're supposed to be summarizing for the long-term, not trying to capture everything in the short-term. That's what Wikinews is for. — M asem (t) 12:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * De facto I think this already exists. Stubs and articles lacking basic details are almost never posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We should apply the principle to such proposals and !votes. If people don't present evidence and examples to back up their ideas and opinions then they should be discounted.  See evidence-based practice and an essential guide for further information. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. I’m with you here. We need to do it that way. Especially if RD’s aren’t given their own section separate from ITN. Meanwhile, Ismail Kadare was not posted as a blurb even though there was consensus to do so from the very beginning. From day one. Instead the RD/Blurb proposal was closed down because it was stale. Without making an unfounded accusation, I have to seriously wonder if that’s because no administrator was going to put their neck on the line without indisputable consensus. The blowback would’ve been huge. Man this is silly. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That Kadare wasn't posted because of, in reviewing, a few editors basically using "old man dies" and not acknowledging that we have the "great figures" allowance, thus throwing doubt into support for posting, is a major major problem. Those !votes should have been outright ignored. One could talk to that they didn't feel Kadare was a great figure which is a reasonable opinion to express in a !vote, but the opposition here was limited to nonworkable arguments, and this is where we need posting admins to be far more aggressive in ignoring unworkable !votes. M asem (t) 12:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "unworkable" or "nonworkable" means to you, but we all seem to agree that OMD worked as intended in this case and the major/great/whatever figure votes did not. In other cases, vice versa. That suggests both angles still have the potential to win some and lose some, as they have in the past, and neither should be disqualified now or give up in the long run. There are hundreds of notable people most of us might outlive, each with their own intricate life story and circumstances of death. Case-by-case, coworkers. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's also entirely possible too many Problurbers admitted never reading nor even hearing of the guy during his lifetime, rather admitting to only reading what Wikipedia had to say about him, then mulling it over for minutes or (maybe) hours. A bit counterproductive to convincing anyone else unfamiliar of someone's lasting impact. In an edit summary last week, I'd asked you all to ask yourselves in a month if anyone's read a Kadare book yet, given what y'all "know" now, and I'll ask the same again. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't matter if !voters have heard or haven't heard of a person to recognize if the article supports the information for posting a blurb. Otherwise, if we expect !voters to only support blurbs for people that they recognize, that further feeds into systematic bias, given that the bulk of the editor population on WP are English and from Western countries. It is great if people can see a suggested blurb and the article in great shape and with a significant amount of coverage why either death blurb criteria apply, instead of seeing only famous or well-known persons get those !votes. M asem (t) 00:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We can (and probably will) argue till the cows come home on what should matter. But when a broad group of English voters are trying to convince a narrower group of available English administrators that a piece of English writing on any recently dead celebrity is worthy of promotion to the Main Page on "Majorly Great Significance" (or whatever) alone, then yeah, not breaking the suspension of disbelief does matter. Maybe not to this stage of you, maybe not even to Old Masem, but to people in general once they've let themselves almost "buy into" a good promotional story (GPS). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is why we should be asking for evidence-based demonstration (eg: sourced material that discusses this within the bio article) of when someone is being blurbed for being a "great figure" and not handwaving this and providing no evidence, nor dismissing the claim without considering what evidence has been given. Going by whom people have or haven't heard of as a !vote is a terrible process. M asem (t) 12:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable that a few people won't have heard of any given celebrity (even Michael Jordan), but when the majority of voters declare they had no idea someone existed, that's the prevailing consensus. There might also be a concurrent nominal agreement to blurb in the bold text, but the plain text evidence negates that, since the idea of a major figure whose life was even noticed by about 5% of respondents is fundamentally preposterous. A sourced article describing facts and opinions is great for learning after the fact, but does nothing to change the Generally Obscure Figure status a person demonstrably had at the time of nomination. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The "great figure" criteria is applied to the specific field, not to the area of global knowledge. We don't pander to the lowest common denominator of popular culture. Any ITN blurb nomination that is rejected due to the weight of not voters says they have no idea who the person is, and who have made no effort to read the article to understabd who that person was and what their significance to their field was, is a huge problem, just as the pileons we get for "famous" people with little contributions towards their field. This is why any argument strictly based on presence or lack of fame, alone, should be immediately discarded. If you see a blurb nomination of a name you don't recognize, the minimum expected before you should comment is to read the article and then access if the person does or doesn't rise to the level of being a great figure on their field, and eliminate any personal bias or knowledge from the equation. M asem (t) 21:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no "great figure" criterion. You referring to it fifteen times on this page won't change that. There's a "major figure" criterion and none of us know how it's applied or to whom. I don't think the author wanted us to know, rather argue forever in vain.
 * Anyway, I was talking about the weight of voters who did make an effort to read the article. They learned something, they said, but their general admission of not having recognized the name before the unremarkable one-sentence death told the truth about how little an Albanian novelist's life did impact their worlds.
 * You may consider the people, places and things our regular group of English-language volunteers know the lowest common denominators of popular culture, but to us, they're just regular common denominators. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * that is a very elitist sentiment, and should not be at all accepted. We are a global work and not limited to what editors know well. In the same vein, those editors read the article, learned something, and most agreed that the "major figure" criterion was met with it. That's how evidence based demonstration should be done, not this IDONTLIKEITBECAUSEINEVERHEARDOFIT nonsense. M asem (t) 22:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a populist sentiment. You're the one who seems to think he's "above it all" and keeps telling people who regularly decide things he deems problems how they should have done instead. You try to sell it as what the non-English world wants, as if to "take the wheel" of a righteous globalist agenda, but I don't buy it. I've seen your edit history. You prefer American video games too much to convincingly pull it off. I don't say this to be unkind and have no reason to dislike the unknown after getting to know it, mind you; a major figure can just never be a widely and previously unknown figure (in my books), nor can any single person represent an entire unrepresented people. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said in my reply in the preceeding discussion, there is nothing that disallows the OMD argument in WP:ITNRDBLURB, so it is not "unworkable". Unless WP:ITNRDBLURB is changed, little is specified about what the consensus for posting the blurb needs to contain. OMD could be a part of it, as could many other different viewpoints. Gödel2200 (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OMD right now is unworkable because until we explicitly define what that !vote means, it could be taken as "I don't think this person qualifies for death-as-the-story or great figure", or "I don't think we should post any blurbs", or a range of other options. It is equivalent to the support !votes that go "Very famous person". It's not explicitly addressing either of the two reasons we allow for blurbs even if the intent is towards that direction (and if one don't want blurbs, that's where an RFC on this talk page should be placed). Meanwhile, most of the support !votes for Kadare explained their rational why they believed the person merited the great figure rationale for a blurb, so those oppose !votes with zero rationale should have been discounted and the blurb posted in time. M asem (t) 00:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It means: ''', InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what it might mean to you, but in context there's no way to tell what other possible meanings it could be to others. What you state it means is a valid !vote to oppose a blurb, but the shorthand "Old man dies" doesn't necessarily imply that. That's why its always better to have some guideline-based reason with any !vote for any ITNC (including RD blurbs) to support or oppose, so that the admin closure can better judge the consensus. M asem (t) 12:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You've all cast OMD at different noms in recent months; does it mean something else where you're from? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To me, it's this person's death as an event is not notable. E.g. when Pinera died in a helicopter crash, the helicopter crash is itself an uncommon event. I don't think "great figure" should qualify for a deathblurb. E.g. with any sports person dying, whatever importance they had to sports, the event of the death is "old man dies", unless they like, die during a game. Basically this means that only serving heads of state/government meet the threshold, short of an unusal manner of death like assassination. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which, to that argument, is like trying to complain about a topic being listed at ITNR while commenting on an ITNC. If one does not like the "great figure" criteria, the right place to argue that is on this talk page to change consensus for its conclusion, not to disrupt an ITNC about it. M asem (t) 22:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are currently no rules about who qualifies for a death blurb. It would be good for us to establish some This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not a "great figure" criterion, but a "great figure" allowance. As Orbitalbuzzsaw said, WP:ITNRDBLURB does not specify any rules for a death blurb, which includes not saying: "One can't oppose solely because they think "great figures" on their own should not qualify for a death blurb." The crucial line is that death blurbs for major figures are decided "through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb." The position that the event of the death needs to be notable for the death to merit a blurb absolutely could be a part of that consensus. Gödel2200 (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a fine article quality check, but I don't think it's necessary. A speedy close of an unfinished article could be unhelpful, and arguments about whether an article meets the requirements even moreso. If we assume that all good-faith !voters actually check the quality of the article before !voting, there shouldn't be a need for specific rules like these. As a sidenote, I am not worried about what kind of text "counts" for this; I think zero available information on why a terrorist attack happened would be sufficient for "why," for example. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

ITN archives are ready
Hello. ITN archives are now fully ready at In the news/Posted/Archives. But the older archives look a little different because of the style/method/MOS of those days. If you guys want to make some changes to that, let me know, if possible I will do it with AWB or create some new program. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much!! M asem (t) 15:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your work. A follow-up question: do we really need all updates of the posted blurbs?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that was an acceptable false positive to make the algorithm easy to capture all major changes to the template. M asem (t) 13:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Crisis of Confidence
There is a general crisis of Confidence in Wikipedia. "In the News" embodies this. People are coming to doubt the legitimacy and independence of wikipedia, and are coming to believe that editors are "activist" editors who have agendas to pursue. Wikipedia should take steps to move in a different direction.

I respectfully submit this for your consideration. I thank you for reading and welcome your open comments. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In exactly what way? Examples are necessary because this claim is not obvious. — M asem (t) 19:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is generally well know. If you go on social media platforms you will see it. I have written wikipedia articles, but I write them no longer. This is because even if you're writing an article about history, people swoop in and make edits.
 * This is evidence.
 * https://x.com/RonK3l/status/1804859092869243038
 * Please review and reflect on how you want to improve wikipedia.
 * I respectfully submit this request. I thank you. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * When I say "people swoop in and make edits" I mean that in the sense of, they go into articles and edit them towards a particular bias. It's not appropriate.
 * There was a Chinese Olympic Team that was awarded several gold medals, and they were subsequently caught doping. I went into represent this in their article, and it kept being edited back.
 * I urge you to do your own research, that is to say, go on google and type in, "Wikipedia Bias" and see what you find. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a full blown crisis. Wikipedia is better than this. But it is what it is. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Googling "Wikipedia bias" seems like a bad use of time.
 * Maybe we should consider the source, a Twitter user with "America First, ProLife" in their bio, and the methodology used by Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative think tank, that obtains their desired conclusion before we start getting hyperbolic.
 * Maybe, just maybe, two different politicians have different biographies and it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. (For instance, "No Drama Obama" versus four years of the reality show president. I expect the negatively connotated words "indictment" and "conviction" will appear on more than one than the other.)
 * And ITN is not the venue for this anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * contempt prior to investigation does not demonstrate a willingness investigate. I would urge you to open your mind.
 * There is a clear crisis of confidence that must be addressed. I thank you. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My mind is open. My contempt came after investigation revealed the biased source of your information and the lack of information it provides. All that tweet demonstrates is that RonK3I knows how to use powerpoint. If there's a study with actual methodology, it can be examined, but its source should still be noted. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless there are related points regarding "In the news", this seems like the wrong forum.—Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)