Wikipedia talk:In the news

Defining "newsworthy"

Having seen the Princess of Wales sharing a video talking about her cancer treatment being nominated, I think we have reached the point where the newsworthy principle of ITN needs to be more firmly codified. Some note that items have to be literally in the news as well as something that a journalist of repute would write a full article on. (Or, you know, it's on ITN/R.) Would this be added to the main ITN/C page if generally agreed it is something that needs to be added Kingsif (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anyone saying it isn't newsworthy. But this does kinda fall under the "not a newspaper" ITN tenant. The impact, with no disrespect to Kate, isn't exactly colossal. It's slightly more important celebrity news. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The whole mess around the Princess of Wales story - which has only culminated from an encyclopedic view is that she was absent from the public for a few months as to determine and be diagnosed with cancer - is trivial, cancer happens to anyone, and it is not like the gov't of the UK is going to be affected by this. If, hypothetical, a national leader announced they had terminal cancer and was expected to die in a few months, that might be something, but this specific story is absolutely not encyclopedically newsworthy.

This is where we as an encyclopedia fight systematic bias from the press that have constant detail on a story that ends up being a trivial matter at the end of the day. ITN has to reflect the encyclopedic purpose, not what is considered important by the press. Masem (t) 01:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: "ITN has to reflect the encyclopedic purpose ..." We have an entire article devoted to this issue, and it's become such an international phenomenon that most English-speaking people on most social platforms will have encountered it at least once in the last few weeks. I realize that the article is up for deletion and therefore not a good specific example (and has the worst titling I've seen in quite some time). Still, there's something to be said for thinking generally about what is meant by "encyclopedic purpose", regardless of whether it's hard or soft news, and if ITN is adequately serving all the audiences that are visiting Wikipedia's front door. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

And that article is highly problematic (with multiple discussions over it over the past week) at the fact that that was mostly BLPGOSSIP and overly detailed media speculation on where she was. The fact she was absent, and created that stir, is definitely worth a paragraph or three in her bio article, but that article is exactly the type as an encyclopedia with a strict BLP policy don't want, even if the media is going on to it for great lengths. Its only of those things that in ten years or so will likely be a footnote to her biography, and that's where we have to recognize that news of the day is not equivalent to encyclopedic topics of the future. Masem (t) 02:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

These types of articles are often a crapshoot on whether they are merged or remain due to significant coverage. And WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE might not be possible to gauge during an actual event. —Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Masem, I very specifically said that I was speaking only to a generalized case because that article does indeed have issues. You don't need to make that case to me. Let's say we have an future large soft news story with an unproblematic article about that specific topic. How is that not encyclopedic by your, but more importantly Wikipedia's, our own definition?

Bagumba, it's not our job to assess whether an article will meet PERSISTENCE at some undetermined point in the future. ITNCRIT has zero words on that. The guideline itself says that "editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not." We can only operate on what we know in the moment... which is what PERSISTENCE says and works with the deliberately flexible criteria laid out at WP:ITNSIGNIF. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

My response was to Masem's comment ...is definitely worth a paragraph or three in her bio article, but that article is exactly the type as an encyclopedia with a strict BLP policy don't want... Yes, it's not a factor for ITN, unless someone nominates a candidate for WP:AFD.—Bagumba (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

For reference, WP:ITNSIGNIF is currently quite subjective:

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. Generally, proof that an event is being covered, in an in-depth manner, by news sources is required.

—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

We need to pull that out a lot more often, !votes that "it is in the news" for something that can only be described as light entertainment of news are getting common. Kingsif (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Until there's consensus to tighten it, almost anything is fair game, despite some who might claim otherwise. —Bagumba (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, I don't think that any individual person's medical conditions are a suitable topic for ITN. I know that 'wider impact' is fairly subjective, but my understanding is that the stories we run should be the ones that have a wider impact on the world, not on the churn of the 24-hour news cycle. It's easy for certain areas of the news media to turn practically anything into a continuing story by running it often enough. This is an encyclopedia, though, not the front page of The Sun, and we need to be selective. This kind of story is necessarily ephemeral, and I cannot see any encyclopedic merit in running it. (And while we're at it, I also don't think we should run the progress of Donald Trump's various trials unless - at the very least - he is convicted of a criminal offence which could attract a prison sentence; I don't think we should post the daily minutiae of the UK and US election cycles; and I don't think we should post new product releases unless, as a minimum, the product in question is the first public release of a genuinely novel technology. Also no film premieres, concert tours, celebrity weddings, or arrests. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, I don't think that any individual person's medical conditions are a suitable topic for ITN. Unless the announcement of such comes with something very significant (e.g. an incumbent world leader stepping down to get treatment) then I agree. I don't think we even posted Boris Johnson getting COVID and being put on a ventilator at a time when there was still a not insignificant chance of death in the short term - an event that had much greater significance for everyone other than Kate's close family. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• The OP seems to suggest that the Princess of Wales story is not substantial - "something that a journalist of repute would write a full article on". The Times is a reputable newspaper and, yesterday, the story covered the entire front page and the following six pages. It doesn't get much more substantial and in-depth than that. Her article was also the top read on Wikipedia for the day, with triple the readership of the Moscow shooting, and so it was the story that most interested our readers.

The main problem with the story is that it's an ongoing one and we don't have all the details and outcome yet. Speculation about these is what's driving a lot of the coverage and interest but so it goes. Most of our ongoing entries are like that.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

There are certain topics that get far too much magnification in the media, this includes anything involving or adjacent to the Royal Family. We are able to recognize that as an encyclopedia and avoid the excessive detail on such topics as necessary. Also, again, we do not care about page views at ITN, that has nothing to do with ITNs purpose. Masem (t) 13:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree that it is generally not appropriate to feature someone's illness/public absence prominently on our front page for BLP-related concerns. Personally I am pretty weirded out by how many publications are putting this type of personal news on their front-pages. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

If you thought that was weirdly personal, you'll probably want to skip today's update on the Former Royal Baby. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

We have talked about how to define newsworthiness in an ITN/C sense, and I think the consensus is that it simply cannot be done; every participant defines it differently. It's one of those "it's actually a feature, not a bug" type things. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this a good point. I have my own standards for these things, but I am often pleasantly surprised by what comes to the fore that I would not have thought of - and sometimes even by a satisfying harmony created from nominations I opposed. It's a collaborative effort, in the end, and that's good. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

ITN and ARBPIA

I see two nominations tagged with WP:ARBPIA and that Wikipedia:Contentious topics applies. Does that apply to ITN? Discretionary sanctions can be broad and are basically impossible to appeal. There is no way to block someone from a specific subsection, so a 30 day ban would at least be for ITN/C if not project wide. Is this something ITN really wants to deal with? I'd encourage the regulars to keep a close eye on these discussions lest they attract the ire of some drive-by "uninvolved" admin. To date the discussions seem (mostly) cordial and uncontroversial. --24.125.98.89 (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Specific topics within the scope of established DSes, such the PIA one, are fair game to be considered under those DS, as to avoid editors sniping at each other during the ITN nom. That's more the issue than the actual news content. I would assume that if action has to be taken, it would be one of those that may not block them from ITNC initially but if they repeat offence, then blocking from ITNC would be feasible. Masem (t) 00:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense, really just a heads up that the zealots are now watching ITN --24.125.98.89 (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Earthquake magnitude ratings

At WP:ERRORS, there is currently discussion about whether and how to report earthquake magnitudes in ITN blurbs. Opening this discussion so we can come to a more general consensus for future instances.

Pings:@Stephen@Brandmeister@Schwede66@Bagumba@Abductive. Sdkb ^talk 15:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Some options I see are: (no particular order)

1. Mention Modified Mercalli intensity scale, like the severe in the current Taiwan blurb.
2. Mention magnitude of the quake, though there are multiple scales
3. Don't mention anything about the intensity

I've lived in earthquake areas where the headlines generally mention the Richter scale measurement.its magnitude —Bagumba (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Striking my comment on Richter scale. Per Natg 19 below, Richter has been phased out (But the Richter scale was eventually scrapped in favor of what is known as the moment magnitude scale. Los Angeles Times)—Bagumba (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally I understand the numbers more (so 7.4 means more to me than severe-rated). I'm in UK, where generally the earthquakes are given in the magnitude numbers, but don't know if that's different for other countries. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: Notification of this discussion has been left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Earthquakes.—Bagumba (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple intensity scales of which the Modified Mercalli is just the best known and most used.

Moment magnitude is the magnitude used for most larger (stronger) earthquakes by seismologists and this is generally what is reported.

Higher magnitude earthquakes generally have higher intensity shaking but this is not always so. Remember that it is the shaking that causes the damage. Mikenorton (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I vote for using some sort of magnitude number. "Severe-rated earthquake" means nothing to the general public, but they have at least some knowledge of what a 7.0+ earthquake means. I had thought moment magnitude was the generally accepted scale, but maybe that is in the US. News reporters tend to erroneously say "Richter scale" but I believe that has been superseded by moment magnitude. Natg 19 (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• I looked at the titles used by the 98 cited sources in the article. They either describe it with the magnitude number or use words like strong, strongest, major, massive, and powerful. Not a single source calls it severe or anything-rated. The current "severe-rated" then comes across as stilted Wikispeak -- OR not used by the sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  We can also just call it "severe" and leave it at that. For news specifically I don't think we should be mentioning a magnitude number, because those are based on calculations that tend to be adjusted upwards or downwards somewhat after enough time has passed to give a more correct estimate, meaning the initial estimate is frequently incorrect. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  ...meaning the initial estimate is frequently incorrect: But that's the same with death counts. We update them when sources update them. —Bagumba (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's much more clear to the average reader when it comes to death counts than magnitude calculations. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't we omit tropical cyclone scales on ITN blurbs? What makes earthquakes different? Howard the Duck (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why they're different. Can only attest that sources mention magnitude regularly, if not also in the headline. —Bagumba (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Either option 1 or 2 should do the job. Earthquake magnitude is one of the things we do not simplify in the related article per WP:TECHNICAL and write as it is - it's assumed that our average reader knows the basics of magnitude scale and indeed, it's not a rocket science. Many outlets report the magnitude in the breaking news, in the headlines and/or running prose. Brandmeister^talk 17:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, readers generally know what the numbers mean at a pretty granular level, especially in areas that actually get earthquakes, unlike the UK. Abductive (reasoning) 20:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I would go with Option 2 and in particular avoid Option 1 unless the number is mentioned as well. I assumed "Severe" corresponds to something higher than intensity VIII and indeed it came up at a quite different position on the CWA scale which Taiwan uses. Felt effects for the same magnitude vary highly depending on the earthquake depth and location (on land or offshore), so they only provide a ballpark, but Option 1 with no number doesn't even do that.

Something else to note is that various countries use various scales for both earthquake intensity and earthquake magnitude, all of which have their shortfalls. The scale used here (MMI) is the US modification of the Mercalli scale; this is for example not used by European countries (which used MCS, then switched to EMS). Some East Asian countries, including Taiwan, don't use a I-XII scale at all for intensity, whereas magnitude scales try to agree with each other in numbers, so that's another point in favour of Option 2. Daß Wölf 20:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I totally oppose simply using adjectives such as "severe". That's exactly the kind of language I would expect (and would get) from a tabloid news service. It tells me nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The blurb doesn't say "severe" though. It says "severe-rated", which is an actual classification of earthquake. Overall, I agree that severe-rated is meaningless though. Natg 19 (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Moment Magnitude all the way. It's a settled measure that people have a better feel for relative to the numerical scale that Modified Mercalli uses, and while I think impacts-based measures are nice for the purposes of informing individuals not experienced at understanding alternative measures but just simply saying the earthquake is "severe", I think people generally understand that a 7.4 magnitude earthquake is fairly "severe". DarkSide830 (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• We now have the New Jersey earthquake. The NYT headline seems typical: "4.8-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes New Jersey". No other scale is used. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Just use the Moment Magnitude Scale, as this is what most sources use. Even on the same scale, the intensity of the same earthquake can vary depending on factors such as ground conditions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Just use Moment Magnitude. People generally know what it means. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Magnitude restored in current Taiwan blurb per consensus here.—Bagumba (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Blurb tense

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § How to describe past events on the main page. —Bagumba (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

A proposal for rules on RD Blurbs

RD blurbs are something that don't seem to have any consistent criteria. I therefore propose the following set of rules for when a person should qualify for an RD blurb:

1) Their death is notable for its direct effect (such as the death of a sitting political leader), OR

2) The manner of the death is itself notable (such as an assassination, aircraft crash, etc.), OR

3) The death has received front-page coverage in multiple international sources (BBC, NYT, Al Jazeera, etc.), but only if the death is notable in some other way

I think this would reasonably cut down on the controversy around RD Blurbs. Thoughts appreciated! This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I like it, but #3 could use some more specificity. To me, the death of David Bowie is the quintessential example of a death that doesn't meet #1 or #2 that should receive a death blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

But what about the death of my favourite entertainer? (Just demonstrating the obvious problem with fame as a criterion.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

But what about the death of my favourite entertainer? Who cares? But my favorite game designer, on the other hand... BusterD (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

HiLo48, you completely missed my point. Do you remember the level of coverage Bowie's death received in the press? It was MASSIVE. I could have said the same about the death of Nelson Mandela or the death of Margaret Thatcher, but I wanted to stay away from world leaders. "Top of the field" people who just get an obituary should not receive death blurbs. Maybe we should require a death article. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't miss your point at all. I tried to make the point that these things are ALWAYS subjective, and here on Wikipedia, inevitably biased towards "stars" from the USA and the UK. I'm from neither. It's hard to even get an RD for someone from my country noticed at all, let alone any chance of a blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Bowie's death objectively had more coverage and response than Higgs's. It should be that hard to get a death blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally my position would be that Bowie is a borderline case under #3, but I'd vote no since the death itself had no significant impact. That being said, I can see a proposal for if the death gets its own article its considered to qualify automatically as ra reasonable compromise This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

There are encyclopedic-strong articles with high quality about people who are not not politicians, athletes, or celebrities (eg academics, business leaders, and other roles) that we would consider a significant person in their field but that would never get front page coverage, like Higgs the other day or someone like Stephen Hawking. The death would still need to draw news coverage and that coverage should be leaning towards the legacy said person has left or impact they had, rather than simply summarizing the life like an obit. So #3 does not work, if our goal is to highlight quality articles about topics in the news. — Masem (t) 23:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Higgs's article is really good. And the extent of the update to the article, which is supposed to be one of the factors we judge, is Higgs died after a short illness at home in Edinburgh on 8 April 2024, at the age of 94.[80][81] and some copy editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

That's getting far too stuck up on a "significant update"; if an article's fairly complete and the person died of a natural cause like a heart attack at an old age, the death is going to be a one-two sentence thing but the quality of the article exists. The "significant update" really is meant to apply to non-death ITNC and not to RD ones. Masem (t) 00:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Scope of the update is literally the first criteria listed at WP:ITNCRIT and death blurbs cannot be exempt from the rules that govern all blurbs. If there's lots of impact of the death, there will be more of an update. The news is the death, not what the person accomplished in their lives. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

ITNRD which includes blurbs for deaths) is handled separately from the general critiera. — Masem (t) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We can't have it both ways, and say that blurbs for deaths are separate from the ways blurbs are judged. WP:ITNCRIT talks about blurbs and the recent death section separately. Death blurbs are the same as other blurbs. The RD section is separate. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's the hypothetical on why a death blurb would qualify with a one line update: If we had the case of someone that had retired from their career but left well enough time for WP editors to write about their legacy to a full extent (perhaps having an FA about the person), such that when that person dies of old age or other natural causes, what is reported in the papers isn't anything new that we have to expand on outside the death aspect. We absolutely would still blurb that, even though the update is minor.

That usually doesn't happen for the cases we'd post a blurb where the death is natural, because 90% of our BLPs are in terrible shape and require significant updates. Further, for those that we want to blurb, that usually means pulling in a lot of the obits to discuss the importance or legacy of the person. So normally, it does seem for blurbs we are expecting the update but that's due to the crap BLP quality we have across BLP. Masem (t) 01:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That would mean that the death isn't newsworthy enough for a blurb. If there isn't anything new, then it's RD. It seems to be that simple to me. Deaths should not be exempted from ITNCRIT. In fact this is pretty much what WP:ITNRDBLURB already says so it would be nice if we could follow it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

ITNRDBLURB says nothing to the extent of the update, just that the death is updated via reliable sources. Certainly a person whom is claimed to be top of their field, with existing sources in place, but where the death has no coverage, we'd beg if they are really top of their field. That is not the case with Peter Higgs, for example, where there are numerous articles covering his death, just many repeating what's already in place. That's the whole point of the third option under ITNRDBLURB, that death is not the story but what the person has done before that to merit the coverage. Masem (t) 00:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

ITNRDBLURB: Life as the main story: For deaths where the person's life is the main story, where the news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries, or where the update to the article in question is merely a statement of the time and cause of death, the "recent deaths" section is usually used. Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

"usually". Its not a hard or fast rule. Masem (t) 18:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Why write it out at all then if it's not meant to be followed? Higgs' death was "life as the main story". OJ's I can see more justification for a blurb based on the update at O. J. Simpson#Illness and death. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

ITNRDBLURB also has

Major figures: The death of major figures may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis...

—Bagumba (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but then editors at ITN should look at the volume of news coverage. The death of Peter Higgs, while a loss to science, is hardly comparable to the amount of coverage given to someone like Kissinger or Gorbachev.

If there is a sufficiently broad-based consensus (that is, community not local) that's something else, but this is my two cents.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this is finally being discussed at the talk page. But I can't get behind the proposed criteria. The biggest problem I have with them, as Masem touched on earlier, is that the proposed criteria exclude pretty much everyone except politicians. It would be wrong to suggest that sitting leaders who wield political power are the only people who have a great deal of influence or that they're the only people whose deaths would be worth blurbing. I'd argue Elizabeth II only technically met criteria #1; she wasn't a decisionmaker, her influence was primarily cultural, more comparable to a celebrity than a politician.

ITN gradually moved away from the rigid "Thatcher/Mandela" standard (i.e. only exceptionally transformative world leaders are worth a blurb) over the years as we started to recognize that you don't have to be a politician to change the world. So we rightfully blurbed Stephen Hawking and Aretha Franklin in 2018. And since then, slowly but surely, we arrived at where we are now: a situation where we'll post blurbs for people like the Nobel prize winning theoretical physicist Peter Higgs, someone whose name may be less recognizable to a general audience than the other names I've mentioned so far, but whose contributions are no less important. And I think that's a great thing.

I appreciate that you share the goal of wanting to cut down on the controversy surrounding RD-as-a-blurb discussions, but the simplest way to do that is to have the criteria match where ITN/C editors are already at, not to codify a fringe position and create a mismatch between the criteria and the consensus position.

I know I'm terrible at being concise, but the TL;DR of all this is that I'm quite pleased with where we're at with this "at the top of one's respective field" status quo. "At the top of one's respective field" is what we've been using for some time now, with comfortable majorities of editors finding it agreeable and only a handful of editors in every nomination finding it objectionable. I think it's time we get it in writing as the actual criteria so everyone can be on the same page going forward.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 07:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not about politicians, but about people whose death actually has an immediate impact. If a country's head of state/government dies, it means an immediate change in leadership. The blurb should be about the importance of the death, as that is the actual news story being posted. Even for great people, we already have a page for obituaries, it's RD.
Also, I doubt that "only a handful of editors" disagree with the over-liberal use of death blurbs as it is done today. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a discussion about this to begin with. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies that this point got drowned in my difficult to follow ramblings, but "people whose death actually has an immediate impact" is why I brought up Elizabeth II as an example of someone who no one would argue shouldn't be blurbed, but who honestly doesn't meet that criteria. When we say the death of a world leader "has an immediate impact", we're usually talking about that leader being a decision-maker. We understand that a decision maker dying is impactful because a country might be taken in a different direction. But we'd be kidding ourselves if we pretended Elizabeth II's death had any real impact on the future of the UK/Commonwealth by that definition. Her death was "impactful" in a way, but it wasn't a political impact in any meaningful sense. It was because she was a cultural icon. I think by these proposed definitions, you could not consistently argue that figurehead monarchs' deaths matter but not any other cultural icons. So IMO either we should either write an exception to this criteria that clearly states that changes in ceremonial heads of state don't matter (IIRC we already do this with republics that have both a president and a prime minister) instead of giving preferential treatment to constitutional monarchies, or we establish a criteria that isn't so narrow as to suggest the only impactful deaths are incumbent leaders. I prefer the latter.

And as for the "only a handful" comment, I base this off of how the last few RDs as blurbs that were posted (Peter Higgs, Thomas Stafford, Akira Toriyama) followed the "at the top of one's respective field" criteria; it's been the de facto consensus criteria for a while. Those who expressed dissatisfaction with the criteria, though very vocal, tended to only make up a small percent of the total !votes. It's also worth mentioning that the editors who approve of how we've been doing things have the largely unified position of "keep doing this", but those who want change have very different, often mutually exclusive ideas of what that change should look like.

One final comment: this one is more in response to the nom's proposed criteria and less in response to you. Henry Kissinger was posted with a very clear consensus, but I don't think he'd get blurbed under these criteria. Nor would Mikhail Gorbachev due to him not being an incumbent, nor would even Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela, the gold standard examples of when to post an RD as a blurb. These proposals represent extreme fringe positions. Gotta meet people where they're at if the goal is to make these discussions less contentious.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm still sticking to 'quality of article update related to later life, death, and funeral.' ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I think more guidelines are a great idea in principle. A Nobel laureate dying of natural causes at a ripe old age is not on a par with ferry disasters (or even the death of Michael Jackson).

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Masem and Vanilla Wizard here in not supporting this proposal based off #3 - I think the person's legacy is what is important in deciding whether or not they get a blurb. yes, we are having more and more conversations about whether RD candidates deserve a blurb, but I don't know if the issue needs such addressing. We can continue to build consensus on each nomination as we always have and decide for each person/article. Sure, I didn't know who Higgs was before his RD nomination, and his death wasn't front page news, but he was important in his field and his article was in good shape. Why shouldn't we blurb that? I think this always was and always will be something that needs to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 14:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we blurb that? Because those are already the criteria for RD. We could give more prominence to RD, but it already exists as a place to note the deaths of important people that requires articles to be in good shape. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We have another case today in OJ Simpson, who had an incredible football career that is overshadowed by his acquittal for double murder 30 years ago. Already there are people suggesting we blurb him because of that. Setting standards for a death blurb is long overdue. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The criteria for RD's are bare bones: 1) an article about the person exists and 2) the article is not crap. Someone like Higgs who has had some large impact and leaves a lasting legacy deserves something more than a tree being cut down or an organist. For the record, I don't think Simpson should be blurbed because I question the impact of his legacy, but it's hard to define that impact in a new set of RD rules. Easiest to just leave it up to each individual RD submission. ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 16:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I strongly agree with mike's position here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think to deserve a blurb it needs to be someone most people have heard of. We (editors) tend to skew towards a more scientific bent, and I'd still be skeptical that the majority could name Peter Higgs if asked This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

"Someone most people have heard of" is problematic. Wikipedia contributors are primarily American or British, so you would be excluding everyone not well known in those countries. HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

As exemplified by Orbitalbuzzsaw's rationale for opposing a blurb for Akebono Tarō, which simply reads 'who?'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this has been argued over and over again, with no real consensus on what changes should be made, or if any changes need to be made. I think there needs to be some way to define "major figures", which is the criterion for an RD Blurb from WP:ITNRDBLURB, but there is no community consensus on what major figure means. Natg 19 (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I am once again in favor of a solution encompassing 1 and 2, or simply an end to death blurbs. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The solution

There's no need for complex rules. The problem here is an artifact which arises because the format of RD is so abbreviated and perfunctory. It then seems inadequate for famous people like OJ. But it's even more inadequate for less famous people because their names alone are not enough to explain to readers who they were. RD then just seems a ticker of random names, like sampling a phone book.

The solution is to fix RD so that all entries get a short description. This is what other language Wikipedia do. For a good example, see the German Wikipedia which has a nice clear Obituary section. That currently lists:

• Akebono Tarō (54), US-amerikanisch-japanischer Sumōringer († 11. April)
• Trina Robbins (85), US-amerikanische Comiczeichnerin († 10. April)
• O. J. Simpson (76), US-amerikanischer Footballspieler und Schauspieler († 10. April)
• Dan Wallin (97), US-amerikanischer Tonmeister († 10. April)
• Eckart Dux (97), deutscher Schauspieler und Synchronsprecher († 9. April)

So, they don't need absurd discussions comparing Akebono and OJ with Mandela or Thatcher. They treat everyone alike and the problem goes away.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That definitely seems like a better solution indeed. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 10:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the best and most practical solution. We should simply abolish death blurbs and expand the RD section with more details.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, although it does mean there would presumably be fewer people listed on the deaths section, as RD is currently using 2 lines, whereas it would need 6 lines to cover 6 people this way? It also gets rid of the WP:EASTEREGG links to some people with common names are listed on RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

This has been proposed and rejected several times before, without having a full discussion on the overall main page format since this requires a lot more dedicated space. And there will still be cases when a news blurb involves a death of a noted person. Masem (t) 13:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

If a news blurb involves the death of a noted person, but has separate notability from just "X person dies" (like an absolute monarchy changing monarch, or the 2023 Wagner Group plane crash), it makes sense to still run the blurb. There could be a case for omitting the people mentioned in the blurb from RD for redundancy, but with this RD format adding more information, I think it's still a good thing to have them there too. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Which means nothing will change in terms of arguing for RD blurbs. Masem (t) 11:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No? The only blurbs would be in cases where the story outside of the death is relevant, but that's the kind of stuff we unambiguously post already. I don't see why famous people (even of the Thatcher/Mandela level) would have a death blurb under this new system. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Part of the larger problem with ITN is that it is so disaster focused, which itself is an extension if editors being far too overboard on creating articles on events that realistically fail NOTNEWS and NEVENTS. Unless it's an ITRN, ITC weighs hard against non disaster stories. The occasional death blurb is an appropriate way to recognize the combination of death of top people in their respective field and articles about those people that are in excellent shape, and to offset the normal gloom and doom. Isolating all deaths to RDs except in cases where the manner of death was the news event like asdassination or in a disaster will give excessive weight to people that may not be as significant as true leaders and influencial people. The whole problem is exasterbated by a combination if editors that want more objective criteria for ITN (which is not how WP works) and that editors still think things like fame and popularity matter for RD blurbs (which ITN soevifically says it doesn't). Shuffling the deaths to a standalone section is "a" solution but it doesn't address any of these other issues.. It is a shortcut solution but not a good one. Masem (t) 15:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by editors that want more objective criteria for ITN (which is not how WP works)? Many areas of Wikipedia are defined by clear policies or guidelines, except ITN, which is based on general local consensus about what is "worth posting" or not. Natg 19 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

All of WP's P&G are descriptive, not prescriptive short of BLP and COPYVIO. While some do have more objective steps to resolve issues, any conflict on how P&Gs should be used is to be determined by consensus. We are not a burocracry and don't have hard fast rules. Masem (t) 15:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with your analysis of the situation, I do not think that blurbing deaths is the best way to offset the normal gloom and doom. Also, my proposal is not "is the manner of death the news event?" (which would still end up with a selection of "unusual" RDs), but "is the non-death part alone still blurbworthy?" (or, as a rule of thumb, "would it still be blurbworthy if they survived?").
A few examples of how it would apply:

Death of Elizabeth II?

Charles III becoming King is still blurbworthy, so we can have that in the blurb and list Elizabeth II in RD.

Prigozhin plane crash?

Russia downing the plane is blurbworthy, Prigozhin and Utkin go in RD.

Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate?

The strike itself is blurbed, Mohammad Reza Zahedi goes in RD.

Death of Nelson Mandela?

A death alone can go in RD, no other news that requires a blurb.

Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

That unnecessarily complicates things. For example, Russian downing a plane without mentioning the key figure aboard is burying the lede, as if there was non one notable aboard a downed military craft, there wouldn't be a story to post about. Masem (t) 16:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say we shouldn't mention the key figures? The blurb can be "Russia shoots down a plane containing Wagner Group leaders Prigozhin and Utkin", and then they both go in RD. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Which means that now wastes space with duplicating them in both the blurb and RD line. Masem (t) 16:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, the blurb is for the newsworthy event, RD is for listing who died. Omitting RD when it's redundant is something I wouldn't necessarily oppose, but the format shown above adds a bit more information that's distinct from the kind of information the blurb emphasizes. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, like always, RD works fine and Deaths in 2024 exists. No need for any expansion. ITN already has limited space. I'm not in favor of any solution that takes away from blurb space. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Where we're going, we don't need space. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that the German solution would be the best. I've never clicked on any RD link for a person I've never heard of. Providing context might help users. Khuft (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to register my enthusiastic support for us adopting the German approach described above, so we no longer have to waste time making the absurd comparisons Andrew rightfully called attention to here. IntoThinAir (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Support this solution big time, and then we could ban blurbing RD's all together. Maybe an RfC is in order? ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 15:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Overzealous editing to have article in the news section of the main page

I noticed something that bothered me. It's not the first time I notice it and I am guilty of doing this once.

I was working away and slowly on making the Louis Gossett Jr. (an actor) wiki page nice. I wasn't quite there yet but much better than when I found it.

Then the actor passed. Someone nominated the page and it got rejected. The user rushed to cite the un-cited and while their intention were good I think they did nonsense things. Having five citations for one phrase, using a citation that doesn't confirm a phrase, and adding Gossett's philanthropy in his award section.

I have repaired some of that stuff already. It's not the end of the world they haven't touched anything in the bulk of his career. It's just a royal pain in the behind to go through one citation at a time to make sure that person hasn't goofed too hard.

So when an article gets nominated, afterward rejected, which leads people to rush and edit the material please tell them to take it easy. Especially when it's not a world event but the passing of an artist.

Just keep that in mind. Please and thank you. Filmman3000 (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Overzealous would be preferable compared to gaming the system. On another note, I suspect RDs can lead to WP:CITOGENESIS, citing unsourced content to obits lifting material from Wikipedia. —Bagumba (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Please use the straightforward "died" rather than "passed". See MOS:EUPHEMISM. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

How to nominate article to In the News Main Page?

Please, can you give me simple routine for nominating articles to In the News Page? AsteriodX (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

AsteriodX, go to WP:ITN/C and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Nomination_steps. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

RD blurbs list

I have been working on a list of articles nominated on ITNC as RD blurbs. The list is in my userspace at User:IntoThinAir/RD blurbs. It currently includes all such ITNC nominations I could find going back to the beginning of September 2023. It is interesting to see which people were posted as blurbs and which were not: for instance, some former presidents were posted as blurbs (Giorgio Napolitano and Sebastián Piñera), but others were not (Ali Hassan Mwinyi and Martti Ahtisaari). IntoThinAir (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Might sound a bit harsh, but, I am going to say this. The RD blurb discussions are not objective, but, are just popularity contests. A blurb discussion that does not blurb the death of M. S. Swaminathan who had ensured that millions were saved from hunger and famine, but blurbs others -- just indicates that the discussions are pointless and just pure popularity contests. Specifically, popularity among the editors who frequent this place and no one else. Ktin (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Precedents This has been analysed before. For example, for 2022, I made a table of Famous Deaths and their treatment at ITN. As Ktin says, there's no objective basis for this and WP:ITNRDBLURB confirms that the process is sui generis. It doesn't much matter for famous people because readers will come in large numbers to the article regardless of whether ITN posts them or not. Meat Loaf, for example, was not posted but was in the Top 10 for 2022, beating Mikhail Gorbachev, who got a blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@IntoThinAir: Thank you for gathering this information! Very interesting to sift through. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Adopting one guideline from DYK

In light of the O.J. Simpson RD blurb (this is not to question whether it should be posted, that's a separate issue), the blurb itself is extremely questionable as it puts too much focus on his criminal history.
DYK has a guideline at WP:DYKHOOKBLP that says Hooks must adopt a neutral point of view. Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. Note that this is a stricter requirement than BLP as a whole: a sentence that might be due weight in the article can become undue if used in the hook, as all of the surrounding context of the individual's wider life is missing." Given that we are in a similar situation that we only have one sentenece to describe a topic (normal news blurb or death blurb) and thus can't give further context, we should adopt a similar principle.
Note that this is when the negative aspects are not the main story (as in the case of the O.J. blurb). If the news story is about the negative factor, such as with a key criminal conviction/sentencing, we really can't avoid that if there's otherwise support for the topic. But we shouldn't be forcing in negative (or even positive) factors related to BLP where they aren't the key highlight of the story. — Masem (t) 12:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Support this, and I'm surprised it's not already a guideline given the BLP implications of it. I suggest it should also include recently dead people for, well, recent deaths. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BDP, BLP policy extends to the recently deceased and clear those we'd include on ITN due to the 7 day period. — Masem (t) 13:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I know, but it's better to make it explicit as I've seen a comment on OJ's nomination saying that WP:BDP wouldn't apply to legal issues. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That exposes more issues around the OK blurb that I don't think are relavant to this discussion. As a hypothetical that distances itself from those issues, let's say that when Putin dies (who is one I'd definitely list as a great figure due to his impact on history even if that was mostly seen as net negative to the world and thus likely would have a blurb) it is reasonable to identify him as the former Russian president, but it would be inappropriate in our blurb to go on to say things like dictator, warmonger, etc. — Masem (t) 14:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK hooks are mostly trivia with no respect towards WP:DUE, so it's understandable there. On the other hand, ITN blurbs need to be neutral (WP:NPOV), which might require negative points. Per the policy WP:YESPOV:

As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.

There's no way OJ's blurb should be neutered to only say "American football Hall of Fame running back O.J. Simpson dies."—Bagumba (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem that is common to DYK is that we have limited context to explain anything that may be tied to a POV. Articles have room for the required context, but a single sentence blurb does not. And without going into other problems with the OK blurb, if it is actually impossible to write a neutral RD blurb, that's likely a good reason not to have that as a blurb, and instead let the normal RD process apply. (I intend to open a separate discussion on the other issues with the OJ blurb later, but this can be handled as a separate issue) — Masem (t) 14:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that "it's impossible to write a neutral RD blurb". If we managed to decide multiple notable roles to blurb for someone like English singer, songwriter and producer David Bowie dies at the age of 69[1], then it's no different to decide that OJ was notable for more than just playing football. —Bagumba (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

None of those descriptors for Bowie are negative nor positive terms, they are objective descriptors. A better point would be Higgs, we're the blurb i( which I may have written, so I'm guilty here) mentions being a Nobel winner, which is an unduly focus on a positive term compared to calling him a physist.
Unless the person was only notable for negative actions (such as Bin Laden), we should avoid negative or positive descriptors in blurbs. — Masem (t) 15:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I continue to think it's misplaced to focus on "positive" or "negative" instead of WP:YESPOV's guidance to determine purely what is due. —Bagumba (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The news is often "unduly focused on negative aspects" of people, living and recently deceased. Say Trump gets convicted of some crimes. I imagine that has a strong chance of passing ITN/C for a blurb. How would that work with DYKHOOKBLP? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That's what I implied that if the conviction is actually the news event, writing about that would not be unduly, since we are specifically focusing on the news story that is the event. If Trump is convicted, and then far down the road he dies, including anything related to the conviction in a death blurb would be unduly (barring anything that may happen in the future) — Masem (t) 15:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)