![]() | Please note: Please do not post error reports for
Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to
WP:ERRORS. Thank you.
Please do not suggest items for, or complain about items on Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ITN/C. Thank you. Please do not write disagreements about article content here. Instead, post them to WP:CEN. Thank you. |
![]() | This talk page is for general discussions on
In the news.
Please note: The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the In the news process. It is not a place to ask general questions, report errors, or to submit news items for inclusion.
|
![]() | This page has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() |
---|
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
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:
-- MtPenguinMonster ( talk) 13:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
"changes in, reelections or reappointments..., as reappointment may exclude reelection, usually being non-elective. Brandmeister talk 08:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
... 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)
"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)
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)
"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)
...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)
sui generis basis. — Bagumba ( talk) 05:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
![]() | Please note: Please do not post error reports for
Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to
WP:ERRORS. Thank you.
Please do not suggest items for, or complain about items on Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ITN/C. Thank you. Please do not write disagreements about article content here. Instead, post them to WP:CEN. Thank you. |
![]() | This talk page is for general discussions on
In the news.
Please note: The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the In the news process. It is not a place to ask general questions, report errors, or to submit news items for inclusion.
|
![]() | This page has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() |
---|
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
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:
-- MtPenguinMonster ( talk) 13:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
"changes in, reelections or reappointments..., as reappointment may exclude reelection, usually being non-elective. Brandmeister talk 08:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
... 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)
"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)
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)
"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)
...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)
sui generis basis. — Bagumba ( talk) 05:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
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)