Wikipedia talk:In the news

Topic diversity

Just a perspective from a regular reader and former occasional editor.

In the News is dominated by the same few topics: deaths (especially mass casualty incidents), politics (especially elections) and sporting events. Nothing against these topics, but are we overlooking equally significant news in other topics that may be interesting to readers?

The entry about the boycotts in Southeast Europe was a refreshing change, because such economic developments have great impact on societies. Once the Trump tariffs take effect, they will upend global supply chains and thus deserve a blurb. If a Fortune Global 500 company goes out of business or is acquired, this affects their thousands of employees and millions of customers, with further reprecussions if it is systemically important to its industry or country.

Some product releases have an immediate and massive impact that reliable sources expect to be long-term. Three obvious examples are:

• Pokemon Go, the first mainstream augmented reality app, with players involved in numerous incidents and wider trends.
• The first Covid-19 vaccine, developed in record time and deployed across the world to enable recovery from the pandemic.
• ChatGPT, groundbreaking generative artificial intelligence that reshaped how people write, learn and work.

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should also highlight newsworthy events in the natural sciences and mathematics. 119.74.161.80 (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I started a discussion a few weeks ago regarding WP:PROMO as it relates to blurb posts. Feel free to leave your thoughts in that discussion as well. I do believe at the very least that business-related news is underrepresented at ITN and we could really do well to change that. For what it's worth, the issue ITN runs into with scientific news is the timeline between a discovery and the publication of a scientific discovery. Usually we want to wait for a study to be verified, but sometimes these stories fall through the cracks later on, or get hung up for other reasons. Feel free to suggest some changes to ITN blurb consideration overall though. We've been discussing this a lot lately. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

To me, if a business news event has an immediate (and expected to be long-term) large-scale impact on the wider society, then what matters is the blurb and article cover it in a neutral and encyclopediac manner. If we refuse to blurb it due to unreasonable concerns over promotion, we are doing our readers a disservice. Thanks for explaining the issues with scientific news. One idea is to complement ITN/R with a page that explains ITNSIGNIF for different topics (like what makes a mass casualty event significant enough for ITN) and for certain topics (like scientific topics), getting more input from experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.241.172 (talk • contribs)

The problem is that with most business news, its hard to tell of any immediate long term impact. What can have impact are multibillion merger plans (like with did for Disney/Fox or Microsoft/Activision), even with the understanding that things may change before the merger is complete, since usually the market moves on the announcement and not the closure. We've also covered major market depressions that last for multiple days, but tend to ignore short term ones (like the one that hit AI companies with that Chinese AI news from a few weeks ago). Masem (t) 23:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• The elephant in the room currently is the new Trump administration and its radical attempts to reshape the domestic and international order. It's bizarre that ITN is preferring to cover politics in Liechtenstein instead but that's getting preference because of WP:ITN/R. That list of guaranteed significance distorts ITN's balance but it's hard for anything else to get a consensus in open discussion. If you want more variety, then you have to show up, nominate varied topics and !vote for them. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

General elections in small countries are absolutely newsworthy, as their governance impacts a few thousand to a few million people. ITN should not have a systemic bias towards large or Western countries. I would fully support blurbs about Trump administration policies with significant global impact, such as the tariffs (which will upend global supply chains) and shutting down USAID (which will worsen problems in poor countries). Perhaps we should consider stricter criteria for mass casualty incidents and sporting events, but the bigger issue is what topics ITN is neglecting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.241.172 (talk • contribs)

Stories that involve politics outside the election cycle are very difficult to include because we do not have any sense of scope or impact. Like the USAID situation, we can speculate to long term impacts but until those happen it's difficult to claim significance over other similar political stories. The tariffs and trade war is different since the impact was immediate (Canada's own tariffs) hence it's posting. Masem (t) 23:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia editors should not engage in speculation, but can Wikipedia consider expert predictions and analysis about the likely impact of an event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.159.11 (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

It would have to be a clear, widespread aspect, with established precedent for it. For example the overturning of Roe v. Wade at the time was widely projected to drastically affect abortion rights with states poised to have laws come into effect with it. As such, that's a clear political-based story that made sense to post. Same with the current trade war. The elimination of the USA Is funding, not so much even though any sources postulated on the impaxt. Masem (t) 23:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps ITN should have limitations concerning non extended confirmed users

Today we had a nomination for a routine local re-election as ITN. From User:Pnc4k - in their 17th ever edit, and first-ever contribution at ITN. And while User:Mike gigs correctly notes that I shouldn't bite (and AGF - though I'd think any user that fails CIR has good faith) - perhaps it's time to restrict ITN participation to those with at least a little bit of experience. Or at the very most, limit them from creating or closing proposals. Nfitz (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

We should not be restricting people from contributing in good faith unless they are persistently disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks User:Nfitz. I don’t think you’re wrong. ITN has been under particular scrutiny lately. I know some people see ITN as a “good ole boys” club (and this may add to that), but others see it as a breeding ground for arguments - mostly caused by those who don’t understand or read the rules behind ITN. So I don’t think this is the worst idea. It would certainly lead to a reduction in the destructiveness and contention that surrounds ITN, even if just a bit. ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 01:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need to impose those (though maybe our guidance should urge editors to wait and lurk to see how ITN is run) such that they will have a better idea what stories we typically post. But preventing them from nominating at any point is not really good (against WP's overall purpose). Obviously in cases of posting of contentious stories with clear problems like POV (like what that IP did yesterday), those should be quickly closed and removed, but the local election one was made in good faith, one that we know won't go anywhere, so quickly closing it with a gentle note was the right step. Masem (t) 01:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Though there have been some lulus lately. I missed the Tesla Gigafactory one ... lol, actually I think that's quite amusing. An over-reaction by some ... just close the clear joke, which seems to be poking fun at both sides! Nfitz (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This was the danger of adding the 'nominate' link on the Main Page, which I opposed at the time. Inevitably we now get more inappropriate nominations from new users who are unfamiliar with the process. That's not their fault, we can simply point them to the criteria while opposing the nomination. Modest Genius ^talk 14:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

ITN/R space exploration content

I am curious what the general thought is here regarding the nature of ITN/R's 3rd space exploration entry, "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations". I, personally, am thinking that it might no longer be valid to have at ITN/R. We haven't posted many orbital launches recently, and List of spaceflight launches in July–December 2024 is a good indicator of just how many recent launches there have been. List of missions to the Moon also shows us that there have been and seem likely to be more and more missions to the moon in the near future. The way I see it, I think we should be evaluating orbital or lunar launches on their own merits, instead of having a blanket allowance for all of them to be posted to ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree with this. As commercial launches become more common with programs such as Commercial Lunar Payload Services, it's probably best to remove this from ITN/R, or to restrict it to interplanetary missions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I think, personally, that interplanetary missions would be so slam-dunk at this point that ITN/R placement isn't even needed. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd move the threshold to be beyond lunar orbit, rather than focus on the commercial facet. Getting to the moon is now "easy", other destinations like asteroids or other planets are still much harder.
If we ever get manned missions to the moon, the first in several decades may be appropriate but that can be suggested undrr a normal ITNc. — Masem (t) 00:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, manned missions might actually be better ITN/R material in the end because they fit under the "happened before" label, but at the very least the next one would be be very notable. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we're yet at the point that lunar landings are routine or easy enough to remove them from ITNR, but we are getting close. So far there has been just one successful private lander, and since 2020 the only space agency ones are Chang'e-5, Chang'e-6, Vikram and SLIM. A rate of roughly one mission per year is not too many to post. Crewed missions will certainly be notable enough to post, and are unlikely to become routine for at least another decade. Lunar orbit is much easier and more frequent, which is a problem for the current wording. Perhaps we should put 'successful' in the wording for now, and require lunar missions to be landings (not just orbits or flybys). If/when successful lunar landing become common, then we can push the limit out to 'beyond the Moon'. Something like:

• Successful arrival of spacecraft at their destinations, if that is beyond lunar orbit or a lunar lander

Modest Genius ^talk 13:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The current nomination indicates that at least in terms of landers "successful" is not black-and-white and possibly not the best term to use - does a partially successful mission count as a success or failure? Separately, if we do change to something like you suggest I think it would be clearer if we split it into two criteria:

• Landings of spacecraft on astronomical bodies other than earth
• Arrival of spacecraft at destinations beyond lunar orbit.

Crash landings on the moon seem to be (currently) as notable as soft landings, and a landing on an asteroid or comet that passed between the earth and moon would certainly be notable. I'm not sure we need to specify "successful" for the second - I can't think how a spacecraft could arrive at its destination unsuccessfully? Thryduulf (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

By landing but not being operational, or landing awkwardly or falling over? - SchroCat (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Current consensus seems to be that partially successful landings are as notable as fully successful ones, but my comment was not about landings but about reaching destinations beyond lunar orbit. Thryduulf (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• The big space news currently is the "rapid unscheduled disassembly" of another SpaceX Starship. ITN/R tends to act as a filter and so distorts our coverage and makes it too samey. Whether something is notable should be based on coverage per WP:N. Let's just follow the evidence rather than dogmatic theory. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Something not being on ITNR does not preclude it being posted via a normal nomination, and while the SpaceX failure might be notable not all similar events are so they don't belong on ITN/R. I do note though that Starship failing to hold itself together has not been nominated, which is an absolute barrier to posting. If you think it should be on ITN then you need to nominate it. Thryduulf (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose tightening ITN/R criteria for space exploration. We had 8 blurbs about outer space in 2023 and 12 in 2024, which seems reasonable (all other natural science topics have very little representation at ITN, except perhaps archaeology discoveries). Tighter criteria for space launches will only reduce the topic diversity, making ITN all about elections, sports and deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.126.10.15 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I support the proposal and clarify we are not tightening the criteria for ITNC. I've been making this point for years, but space exploration is ill-suited for ITN/R because exploration is, by definition, not "reoccurring." Some space missions are reoccurring, but those are the boring ones we would never post. ITN/C has never (to my recollection) failed to post a good exploration event. We don't need ITN/R constantly muddying the conversation. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The "r" in ITNR stands for "recurring", not "reoccurring", there are slight differences in meaning but importantly, by recurring we include events that are likely to happen again based on past awareness, not necessarily just those that occur on a routine basis like elections, sports championships, and awards. Masem (t) 15:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography § Death announcements with no exact death date

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography § Death announcements with no exact death date. —Bagumba (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)—Bagumba (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

March 2025 Lunar eclipse

It's a pity that we can't discuss this eclipse again. There are quite a few interesting aspects of it emerging in the news today. Like, that it's the first since 1967 to be imaged as a solar eclipse from the lunar surface (by Blue Ghost).[1][2][3] I opposed it yesterday because I didn't see anything unusual about this eclipse (which may not have been an accurate assessment), and because of the timing -- it's not been properly in the news before it happened. Compare this 2014 APOD (and no, as far as I can tell, Chang'e 3 didn't image the 2014 eclipse). Renerpho (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This would of course have to be added to the article before that fact could be featured in ITN. Renerpho (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Tagging the closer and the nominator: Tone, Interstellarity. Renerpho (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

We can and are discussing the eclipse again but the discussion is not very edifying. The point you make about the eclipse being viewed from the moon too is a good one but the nay-sayers are not providing or engaging with such evidence and are making ad hominem arguments instead. This ought to have been a straightforward posting of an uncontroversial scientific event which has attracted much interest but, instead, ITN is gridlocked once again. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Eclipses and other celestial events like meteor showers are oddities as they are known events for many that are for the most part just interesting but provide no new scientific understanding or other long-term impact on the world, and they are only really useful if we post the story ahead of time so that readers know to go look if they are in the right areas to see it (which affects what news stories cover it, making news bias also a factor). Masem (t) 12:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Most ITN postings provide no new understanding or long-term impact – ball games, elections in small countries, bus plunges, fires and other accidents, weather, etc. Imposing extraordinary requirements on some topics but not others is not neutral or objective. Our postings should be based on evidence, not opinion. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

We're actually educational. The whole project is about providing new understanding. Secretlondon (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

We currently have five "ready" blurbs at ITN/C

What should be done about them? I'm worried that some such as 2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites are becoming stale, and they can't all be posted at once. Should the older "ready" blurbs be posted and then rotated with the new ones after 12 or 24 hours? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The massacre one is still not ready due to the fact that we have yet to see any independent confirmation of the numbers, and that likely looks like it will fall off, though if independent sourcing does come through later and there's still violent activity, that might be a way to consider again.

But let's say we have these 5 that are truly all ready. My suggestion would be to add 2 to the box per day, so that at worst these all get a minimum of 48hr within it. Masem (t) 16:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Genuine question - what needs to be dome to get this blurb up before it rolls off? Can we just eschew the number in the blurb to solve the issue? DarkSide830 (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

We'll never get independent conformation of the numbers as it's a war zone. Secretlondon (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a good problem to have. I'd also note that no article is guaranteed to have a long exposure on the main page, and in this scenario + for the sake of readers we should prioritize timeliness. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It's only a 'good problem to have' if we fix it. Otherwise we're just letting usable homepage content slip away. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

There's also the option to trim an item from WP:OTD for balance. —Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Seriously, what has to happen for someone to post (for example) the Greenland election? GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Admins willing to post ITN: , would it be possible to get Greenland up? Looks ready to go, and it's been over 24 hours since a new blurb was added. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Small tweak/clarification to ITNRD

The second bullet at Wikipedia:In the news/Recent deaths#Notes currently reads:

• Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis.

Following Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2025#(Posted) RD: Ariel and Kfir Bibas (which was posted despite the lack of clear consensus) exposed that some editors misunderstand what this was intended to cover (speaking as the person who originally wrote it based on extensive contemporary discussions about ITNRD) I propose that we tweak it to:

• Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant biographical coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis. or
• Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on a biography article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis.

My very minor preference is for the former, but either way the intent is to try and make it clear that RD is for featuring biographies not articles about events. Thryduulf (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

First revision is fine with me, and I agree we should be clear that we want biographic coverage. Masem (t) 02:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to say that I don't quite understand the desire to wikilawyer this. RDs are minor: they're line items that will rotate off the main page in a day or two. Moreover, in the linked discussion above there were confirmed recent deaths (recent in the sense that the deaths were only widely reported on recently; we've made exceptions for that in the past) and an article that directly covers the deaths + the events that led to those deaths. Is it a standard RD? No. Does that really matter in the grand scheme of things? Also no. So let's not overcomplicate things. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I think clarification is needed, one way or another, based on this example. In the case of an individual (not part of a group), WP:ITNRD requires a biographical Wikipedia article Nominations involving pages like "Death of < person>" have been rejected because of the lack of broad biographical details on the person, not just their death. So it seems it should be consistent with members of groups, whether similar biographical coverage is expected or not on a nominated group page. —Bagumba (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, either we should require biographical coverage for members of groups or not require it for individuals. My preference is for the former. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

We've never really had people nominating members of a band, have we? I think editors have effectively always treated it like the page needed biographical details. There wouldn't be any real changes just formalizing this, which seems to have been reinforced at #Shiri, Ariel, and Kfir Bibas (below). —Bagumba (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't recall off the top of my head if musicians have been posted this way, but comedian Barry Chuckle, one half of the Chuckle Brothers who biography is covered on the article about the duo, was posted in August 2018. I don't think they are the only one. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, if I was unclear, but I meant nominating band members based on a band page without their biographical info. Barry Chuckle arguably has the minimum at Chuckle Bros. —Bagumba (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The Shiri, Ariel and Kfir Bibas nomination is the first one I'm aware of where there has been a nomination for RfD where there is no biographical content that has got any support for posting as RD. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Support first bullet. Seems to be the de facto practice, reinforced by the Shiri, Ariel, and Kfir Bibas pull. It doesn't make sense to have looser standards for a member of a group than an individual with non-biographical coverage in a "death of <person>" page.—Bagumba (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Restored from the archive. I think I see a weak consensus for the first change above, but as I'm the one who proposed it I don't want to make the change myself (at least not without others saying go ahead). Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Support either of the two wordings. The first seems more natural, although the second could be seen as more explicit in its meaning. Since the first is what seems to be the consensus, go ahead. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I think we've generally adhered to this principle already. Just a question - what is "significant" biographical coverage? Would this be general biographic article minimums, ie we demand biographical prose that is not just about the death itself, with multiple independent sources? I do think that should generally work, but I'm not sure if we want to look some more at how we define "significant" before making such an amendment. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know that we need to be explicit, but I think we should be ideally looking for at least 1-2 paragraphs of sourced prose about their life prior to the events surrounding their death. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CREEP and KISS. This is over-complication for an issue which is quite insignificant. The current wording seems quite adequate and flexible. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  This is over-complication ...: Both options are one-word additions. —Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  The word would generate bickering about what is or isn't biographical. This seems silly because if the content is about the subject person then it's biographical. The current language of "significant coverage" and "case by case" is better because it's more common sense and flexible. And a key point is that the issue rarely arises and is no big deal so there's no need for more complexity.

  What's more, we have multiple policies which tell editors not to legislate like this (e.g. WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW) but the kudzu keeps creeping.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 19:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  I do think that it counts as a big deal given how it's about our literal main page. Having a "case by case" decision is less than ideal as it can easily introduce systemic bias (especially when used to make exceptions in contentious, politically charged topics), so making the letter of the policy align more closely with its spirit and with generally accepted practice is ideal.

  WP:NOTLAW, which you cite, explicitly makes the point that policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. It doesn't say that we shouldn't make policies, only that they should follow consensus and practice rather than prescribe it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  The case in question was Ariel and Kfir Bibas, right? Thrydulf opposed that but it was posted. Rather than accepting this with good grace, they now seek to promulgate a rule of their own devising to overturn this established consensus and practice. This is contrary to NOTLAW. See also WP:FORUMSHOP. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  No, the blurb was pulled soon after it was posted, specifically because the posting went against consensus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  Chaotic Enby is correct, there wasn't a consensus to post the blurb when was posted (it is debatable whether there was consensus against or no consensus either way) and opposition only increased. Most of the opposition was based on the lack of biographical content, which represents the long-standing consensus dating back to at least circa 2016 (when the present RD policy was established). Additionally, if my proposal did not accord with the consensus it would have received opposition for that reason - instead it has received significant support and the only opposition has been of the "we don't need a policy" type rather than "this doesn't match consensus". Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• The nomination discussion, which is the only link in the OP's post, doesn't give any of that history. So, I just had to figure out what happened in this case. The full timeline was:

1. Nomination discussion and posting: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2025#(Posted)_RD:_Ariel_and_Kfir_Bibas
2. An erroneous revert thinking that there was no nomination. [4], [5]
3. A revert based on Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_116#Shiri,_Ariel,_and_Kfir_Bibas

The primary point of the latter discussion was that the deaths had taken place months earlier and so were stale. Another big factor was that it was a contentious topic. So there were multiple considerations in that case and, per the adage, "Hard cases make bad law". Sticking to the "case by case" principle is best when it's so complex.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Smaller arbcom/active sanctions warning templates?

If we are going to including warning templates on per nominations as there is on the Gaza stories, we really need a shorter version as the current is far too large.
In addition is we should only add them if it is the discussion is leaning that way with non regulars appearing to add comments. I don't see anything yet on the Gaza topics to suggest a problem ( the concern being whether it was a surprise attack or not which is far outside what IP conflicts usually are) — Masem (t) 15:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• According to the template documentation, there's "brief" parameter which makes it shorter but I just tried it on the second Gaza nomination and can't see any difference. There's also a "small" option but I'm not sure how well that would play with a busy page like ITN/C.

As for the nominations, the first one seem quite partisan to me and the editors rushing to support seem to include some suspicious accounts. Socking is supposed to be rife in IP issues and there seem to be multiple organised lobby groups on both sides such as CAMERA, Tech for Palestine, &c. ITN seems like a natural magnet for such activity. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I did find {{Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli editnotice}} which is far shorter for this purpose. — Masem (t) 00:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Executed criminals

We had one in recent deaths recently, and now have two listed in candidates. We do say that any living creature with an article is acceptable - I think the problem is that they are semi-celebrities and have lots of media coverage which means that each one has an article. I don't think we should have every US executed criminal on the front page though. What do others think? Secretlondon (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

If we have an article that has reasonable biographical coverage of them (see #Small tweak/clarification to ITNRD above) they qualify for RD. The purpose of RD is to not make the selection of deaths in the news to be politized or anything but as inclusive as possible, barring the quality requirement. Masem (t) 12:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

There's very little biographical information in Aaron Gunches, his history starts at his crime. Eddie James and Jessie Hoffman Jr. do have some history, at least. Secretlondon (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

If you think the article isn't a biography then you should request to move the article to a different title with a different scope, but there is sufficient biographical coverage in all three articles at present to qualify for RD regardless of the article title. I strongly oppose being more selective than we currently are about who qualifies for RD, it will only lead to the sorts of arguments we had before the system changed in 2016. Anything related to criminals/executed people/or similar would lead to NPOV issues very quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the underlying issue is that every US elected criminal has an article as they are kind of celebrities. There's not a lot we can do about that. Secretlondon (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

That likely is more a BLP issue, specifically BLPCRIME. We discourage articles on convicted criminals of significant crimes, the crime itself should be the focus, but there are cases where the convicted is notable beyond the crime itself. Masem (t) 13:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)