Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 111

Archive 105

←

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

Changes in heads of state ITNR

Presently our ITNR for changes of heads of states says "Changes in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election."
In the past I am certain that we have presumed that table to be correct, and importantly the green marked cells is the position of the govt that holds ultimate power over the executive branch and is not merely symbolic or similar. But in the discussion of the helicopter crash that killed the president of Iran, there is debate whether the succession of the president qualifies, an issue that would apply to many other Middle Eastern and Asian states. On the case of Iran, while it is true the president oversees the executive branch, it is also the case that this position is largely ceremonial with the Supreme Leader being the one that not only has full control on the govt but is also heavily involved in the selection of the president. As such the table above correctly marks the Supreme Leader as the main holder of power in Iran, so their succession would clearly be ITNR. But one can also argue because the president does administer the exec branch that they are the office that ITNR would recognize for succession. (that doesn't mean non ITNR succession couldnt be nominated, they'd just have to viewed on their terms)
I swear we've used the green cells in the table as the delimited here in the past for determining ITNR for appropriate cases of succession, but I can't find firm discussion on this. I think we should see what the opinions are on this and if there's a clear consensud for one approach over another, document that on ITNR. — Masem (t) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel like there was a recent discussion about this on this talk page. But maybe it was about changing the "elections" portion of ITNR and not specifically about succession. Natg 19 (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

For the most part, I think the code is coloured correctly. Iran is just a bit exceptional, as a theocracy, with a "supreme" level of management. This bonus level or its boss' secret powers to disqualify candidates don't make the elected executive position ceremonial, though. The President of Iran (even acting) has a lot of day-to-day business on his plate that someone like my king or his supreme leader does not. Major decisions will fall in line with the upper echelon's master plan, of course, but that's a sign of unity, not weakness.

If I suggested otherwise at our talk at the nom, I don't care about blurbing the change; several of the linked articles in the existing blurb already cover it. I also don't think Khameini's shading or lack thereof will be substantial when the time comes; people will vote as it suits them.

I was just trying to make the underlying facts clear. A lot of Iranian governance, foreign and domestic, is routinely obfuscated and warped by the American, British and Israeli media, while much Iranian media is censored in those bubbles. Combined with its bona fide strangeness and losses in translation which affect all "other" languages, I can't and won't blame anyone for missing some key points earlier and wish you all well in your table endeavours. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally, if we're blurbing a president's death, I think that would make the office notable enough to mention the succession of the office. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The hypothetical, if a high ranking but not head or state nor head of executive ( such as a cabinet member) died in a helicopter crash, we'd still cover thatthe issue raised in this case is whether the succession to that position falls into ITNR. This crash is a min ITNR entry but meets the requirements for significance, that's no question. But whether we would include the succession once named is what's in question. — Masem (t) 16:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Technically, we blurbed a helicopter crash. Without three other notable people, four nobodies and an international search and rescue operation, we'd probably have mostly voted Old Man Dies, Wait for Succession and Per Above. Of course, by singling out Raisi for a photo, it feels like another eulogistic presidential death blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if it was just a helicopter crash with no notable people, or say, some low-ranking person that just happened to be notable, we'd likely not have covered that, and the barely notable person getting an RD. That these were high-ranking gov't officials, that's fair enough to include them.

I'm only focused on the succession matter, and in this case, does Raisi's successor fall into the ITNR? The president of Iran may be the top level of the executive of Iran, but it is the Supreme Leader that is fully in control. Same type of situation in North Korea - there is a president that oversees the government branch but it is clearly Kim Jong Un that controls everything, and that's the position that would be ITNR. That's why the green cells in that table are the ones we have focused on in the past when it comes to the succession ITNR - those are the offices that control the executive if not more. Masem (t) 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I know you're focused, you keep asking me. And I keep telling you, yes, by the current guidelines, a proposed blurb seeking to recognize the new President of Iran would qualify as a change in the head of government that administers the executive, thus be entitled to a green-shaded nomination box and all it entails. But nobody's proposed such a blurb. As long as that keeps up, you don't have to worry about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:WPNOTRS, it's well-established that "Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose". The list in question is remarkably lacking in citations for its entries and so seems especially weak. See also WP:OR. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Both the Government of Iran and President of Iran have sourced material making it clear the president is mostly ceremonial with the Supreme Leader having full control of the executive and other branches of govt there. I don't doubt the table here, given the usual editors on it. Masem (t) 12:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Those Wikipedia articles are not reliable either. Having browsed some book-length sources such as The Quest for Authority in Iran: A History of The Presidency, it seems apparent that the role is not mostly ceremonial. The President is elected by the general population and so this gives them significant political standing. But there is then a tension with the Supreme Leader who functions like a powerful monarch. What then happens depends on the individuals and their policies and many books have been written on how this has worked out such as Iran in the World: President Rouhani’s Foreign Policy. Reducing this to a one-size-fits-all coloured box with zero citations is obviously inadequate. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Proposal to add English whisky (Jan 1)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think that English whisky should be added to ITN as it has had significant coverage in various secondary sources. ChefBear01 (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is it in the news? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Most recently it has achieved many international awards but it was established January 1 2016

Establishement

Accomplishments

ChefBear01 (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly better than a four-peat, I guess? Howard the Duck (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I hear it has a very peaty taste, perhaps even a five-peat? 😁  — Amakuru (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski@Howard the Duck

the article contains more information that can clarify its notability what is four-peat?ChefBear01 (talk) ChefBear01 (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This thing isn't currently in the news. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You can try to propose it at WP:ITN/C, although if there isn't one specific, high-prestige event that got into mainstream (non-specialist) news in the last few days, I genuinely don't think it has any chance. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: Would the establishment of English whisky qualify to be included in the list of yearly events for the 1st January?. ChefBear01 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not what ITN is for. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@ChefBear01: it sounds like you're thinking of the On This Day section rather than In The News... Even for that though, you'd need a definite event with a date and year, that's cited as such to reliable sources. It doesn't seem like 1 January 2006 is a date strongly associated with this in the sources... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru:, my understanding is that the establishment of the English whisky Co (St Georges Distillery) is used as the founding point of of English whisky.ChefBear01 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I have a leaflet right here titled "Lancashire Whisky", from Lancashire Whisky Producers Ltd., Valley Gate, Leyland Mill Lane, Wigan WN1 2SB. It's dated 1992, and I bought a bottle at the time (the leaflet came with the bottle). No way is English whisky a thing for ITN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

And Adnams#Distllery also says that they bought equipment for distilling in 2010. So not convinced 2016 was the start or recommencement date for thus. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

As long as we're dropping dates and references, there's some "premium" shit going on in the whisky nation's capital this afternoon. Hall of Famers, C$1,000+ bottles and shocking details here! So who's in? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Nominate it and I'll support it ;) in all seriousness, this doesn't seem like something that has an actual WP:ITNC event or article. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I just figured if anyone was to sell this shindig, it had to be soon. Too late to overspend on hooch and hooch-related trappings now, but never too early to catch a fleeting whiff of other Scottish Canadian je ne sais quoi (if so inclined). My compliments to the chef for suggesting the original blend; that article did need work! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add first launch of crewed spaceflights by a new entity

The first launches of crewed spaceflights by a new entity (country or private company) are inherently notable and should be added to ITNR. This would only apply to the first time a country or company has launched a crewed spacecraft, future further launches wouldn't be inherently notable. For further context/elaboration see Nottheking's comment from this discussion, which this proposal is based on. Happily888 (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't think 'inherently notable' means anything useful here. I also think spaceflight is overrepresented at ITNR already. And as noted immediately above, I definitely don't think worthy stories should lose out for not being on ITNR, so a lot of these cases might well be worth posting - but I don't think that there's anything inherent or inevitable about that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Notable doesn't mean ITN worthy. Every time there's a new mayorship election, that's notable, doesn't mean we need to put it on the main page. I find it unlikely that if a genuinely important space flight happens that we would have any opposition to it being added. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The advent of commercial flight means that we could potentially see a lot of these. Making them ITNR doesn't make sense, but as noted a few sections above, that doesn't mean they can't be nominated as a normal ITNC entry. --Masem (t) 12:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. We removed routine crewed spaceflights from ITNR for good reasons. Any 'firsts' in that field can be considered on a case-by-case basis by ITNC. Modest Genius ^talk 12:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• In my opinion, we still have TOO MANY spaceflight items in ITN. I think we vastly overstate their significance and the duration of coverage we get. New rocket types are commercial news, IMO. If one is noteworthy enough to post (as Starliner ended up being). Then it can be judged on it's own merits. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Clarifying this is an oppose vote. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Add NCAA Division I softball tournament (Women's College World Series) as a recurring item

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawn due to unanimous opposition. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Should the NCAA Division I softball tournament, also known as the Women's College World Series, be added to the ITN/R (list of ITN recurring items)?

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Quick notes: NCAA D1 Men and Women basketball winners are on ITN/R, so NCAA material is eligible for ITN/R consideration.

Survey

• Yes/Support Addition — NCAA D1 WCWS gets a lot of RS attention. After all, this is “in the news”. For example, the 2024 winner (who won within the last 8 hours) received full national RS media articles from the Associated Press, The New York Times, USA Today, AOL, ESPN and CNN, as well as a ton of smaller/regional RS outlets. The current consensus was to not post the 2024 winner almost entirely because it is not listed already on ITN/R. This RFC, which I started, is not meant to change that consensus, but if something is opposed almost entirely because it isn’t here and not because it isn’t “in the news”, a discussion needs to be had in order to determine if said recurring event should actually be on ITN/R. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment above. We post a lot of different sports as it is, and adding this would open the door to NCAA football, hockey and baseball wanting in too. I get that college sports are a different beast in the US than it is here in the UK, and generate a lot of interest, but ultimately these are still second-tier and amateur events, with lower significance than the major pro championships.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I respect your !vote, but if I may ask, why is opening that door bad? NCAA basketball is already listed on ITN/R. NCAA WCWS Game 1 received a record viewership and by definition it is what this page is intended for: “in the news”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The main thing is as I noted, there are already a large number of sporting events at ITN/R, and we're trying to strike a balance here. As you say, it's in the news, but then so are a large number of topics - the media has to publish things day-in-day-out, so there's way more being covered than ITN is designed to handle. We could change our purpose and become more like a "news ticker", churning through any story in the news with an article, but that would require a strong consensus for such a change of purpose. Similarly, despite Bagumba's comment above about the "instructions" regarding stories pertaining to one country, that is something that weighs into consideration for many editors. There are loads of countries in the world, and something that's big in one of them might not necessarily have the global encyclopedic reach to be worthy of inclusion. Ultimately, the decision on whether to include is a subjective one and people will weigh things in their own way. For me, amateur second-tier competitions such as the NCAA, and indeed the university Boat Race over here, which is the closest equivalent maybe and was removed from ITN/R last year, aren't of sufficient interest to a broad audience to rate inclusion. If March Madness were not included yet, I don't think there'd be consensus to add it.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It's probably more the case that the "instructions" w.r.t one country are in practice more nuanced than they are actually written. In which case, as written, they have been oversimplified.—Bagumba (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Some events pertaining to one country, e.g. national elections, are eminently postable. Others aren't.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Do we have any national non-college softball titles in ITNR already? In any case, there's been a general and IMHO justified opposition to college-level events being ITNR, including removing the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race, which is one of the most famous rowing events in the world. As for 'fourpeat', it's a stupid word. 'Threepeat' makes tolerable sense because it sounds like 'repeat', but just adding one to it makes gibberish of it. And reliable sources using sensationalist language does not compel us to do so. If a lot of newspapers referred to a heatwave as a 'scorcher', we would still call it a heatwave. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 95 § Add College Football Playoff National Championship to ITNR failed in 2023, with the close stating In order to consider this for ITN/R, there has to be a record of regular posting in the recent past ... However, it's potentially circular if opposing arguments at the recent softball nom cited its absence on ITNR (see #"It's not in ITNR" below).—Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, so see my !vote below. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, not every college-level competition needs to be ITNR. Yes, events of national relevance can be posted to ITN, but it doesn't mean that we should only look at the viewership in one country to decide what is or isn't ITN. Getting news coverage from multiple American outlets is too low a bar for ITN, let alone for an ITNR qualification, especially since there are already a lot of sports-related and US-related items. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The quality of the articles that I see for this show that individual pages are far away from what we would even post to start with (all tables, no prose). I also think we should look to test one of the professional softball leagues first before starting with a college-level version. --Masem (t) 12:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any and all amateur student sports. We shouldn't have any of them on ITNR (or post them via ITNC...). I realise that NCAA basketball is already on ITNR, but I would prefer to remove that than expand it to other sports. Softball isn't even the second most notable US college sport. Modest Genius ^talk 12:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose generally we get a sports season/event article posted a couple of times and then nominate it for WP:ITNR, not the other way round as this proposal wants to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. We have football and basketball covered at the collegiate level, and that's where we should leave it. Baseball and or softball do nit get nearly the coverage either of those other two sports get. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, NCAA football is not covered on ITN/R. Only Men/Women basketball. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, I always forget this one. I do believe it should be, but the very fact that we have determined the CFB championship isn't notable enough should further suggest the even less notable CWS items aren't either. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: I have cancelled the RFC. Even though I started it less than 24 hours ago, it is a clear WP:SNOW oppose, with myself being the only editor in support and every other editor in opposition. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.