Wikipedia talk:In the news

The recent nomination with the Iranian leadership election has highlighted something that I've taken issue with ITN over the years. Whenever leadership succession occur, we tend to not bold the article of the people who are actually coming to power. The Iranian leadership election was briefly an exception, but Amakuru (talk · contribs) made a complaint about it, with Schwede66 (talk · contribs) later debolding it.

I frankly have a problem with this, even if like Amakuru stated, it has precedent. The person who comes to power in an election or succession of any sort is a key part of the story itself; arguably just as important in many respects as the individual election itself. The significance of, say, the 2025 Romanian election, the 2024 United States presidential election, or the 2025 Canadian federal election, is in many ways just about how Dan, Trump, and Carney coming to power and winning as it is about the election itself. Our readers will be just as interested in who the new Greek Prime Minister, the next Brazilian president, or in this case, the new Iranian supreme leader, just as much, if not more (especially I'd say in more authoritarian regimes such as Iran), as the actual electoral process.

So I herby propose that under the entries of WP:ITNELECTIONS, whoever is elected to the position of executive authority of a certain administration should also be bolded alongside the article about the actual election. — Knightoftheswords 19:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Because the bold-linked articles are held to the highest quality standards, the immediate effect of this would probably be fewer elections and leadership successions being posted to ITN. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I think it's worth understanding the likely consequences. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps, but from what I've seen, most biographical articles related to this sort of thing aren't too poor in quality. Having worked on election articles for ITN in the past, I'd say that often times elections themselves can be more annoying, especially from certain smaller countries where a combination of obscurity, geography, and just small size means that it's surprisingly time-consuming to bump them to a level acceptable for ITN regulars. Plus, from what I've seen (which feeds into my narrative that people are just as, if more interested in who was elected rather than just the election itself), more people work on articles for recently elected leaders than the actual election articles, save for certain instances such as U.S presidential elections. — Knightoftheswords 19:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The bio pages are usually close but not always, but now you have two pages that need to be reviewed for quality. I have no issue if we strongly suggest the winning candidate is at or very near quality, maybe missing a source or update that can be easily fixed, but we should wait for posti g an election if the winner's bio is going to take alot of work to improve. Masem (t) 20:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• The article about the person is usually more central than the article about the process. Typically, it gets more readership and the associated picture is usually a portrait of the person. It will also tend to get more lasting attention too as the election is comparatively short-lived. So, the article about the person should be the first priority for bolding. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  We don't care what gets the most pageviews, you've been told to stop bringing that up. And it is going to depend on the election and people involved; if the election was filled with controversy or a brash campaigning cycle, that likely will the more covered part of an election than the candidates themselves. Making the election the default target means it will be likely the most updated article and thus the best to make sure is of quality to feature, but if we can assure the winner's bio page is good, that should be added as well, it just not always is the best. Masem (t) 23:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  The point of the bolding is to assist the reader who is browsing the main page. They will see the picture of the person and are likely to want to click on the corresponding link to the article. In the current case, the picture caption is not a link and so they have to find the article link in the blurb. By making this bold, it will stand out and so the reader can find it to click more easily.

  In the current case, the readership for the person is double that of the election. This confirms that it's the article of most interest to the readership. Serving the readership in this way is ITN's stated purpose. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  Readers are not stupid. Just because the name is not bolded doesn't mean they won't see the name right there in the blurb next to it. And helping readers find info is only 1/4th of the criteria to consider, it must be balanced against all others. That's why we absolutely care naught about reader counts. Masem (t) 00:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  The current lead blurb is long and contains multiple links to articles about people called Khamenei. A browser who is not familiar with the story may well need assistance in finding the most important link. And that’s usually the winner of the election, as in this case. It should therefore be bolded as suggested by the OP. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  Again, readers are not stupid. The typical election blurb is very clear who the winner is if you actually read the blurb. Masem (t) 00:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The wording of the sentence constitutes assistance in finding the correct link. If ordinary grammar and semantics aren't doing it, bold is going to be of minimal additional help. But as Masem rightly says, our readers (and editors) are not stupid, so please stop assuming they are. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? I always assumed the average person who ends up on the front page did so because they wanted to look up something specific on Wikipedia, so they typed "google" into their address bar, then clicked on the first search result to go to the Google homepage, then searched for "wikipedia" from there, then clicked on the first search result to get to wikipedia.org, then clicked through to the English front page from there. Are there statistics available on front page engagement, or the intelligence of readers? Pretty much everyone uses Wikipedia at least a little, right? Doesn't that mean the average IQ of readers would be about 100? ~2026-15726-53 (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

There was a survey of Wikipedia readers in 2023 and you can read some results at A typology of Wikipedia readers and New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users. The typology identifies five classes of reader, ranging in ability:

1. The Struggling readers
2. The Conformists Class
3. The Ambivalent Class
4. The Over-informed Class
5. The Confidents

Andrew🐉(talk) 14:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow, I guess I was overestimating the internet fluency of the average person if that’s how they supposedly access Wikipedia (searching Google, then using Google to search Wikipedia to access the Main page). I always either had the Main page bookmarked and click to open it in a new tab, or I start typing en. in my address bar and the suggestive algorithm of my browser address bar fills in the rest of the url knowing I want to get to the English Wikipedia homepage.

But then again, I have seen a lot of younger people who just use the address bar of their browser as a Google prompt, as well as older non internet natives, so I’m not sure why I’m so surprised. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 02:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

That would create a higher bar, as the page on the person would also need to be scrutinized on whether it meets WP:ITNQUALITY, it if is to be bolded also. —Bagumba (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Whichever article is nominated, improved, expanded, and of sufficient quality, should be the one bolded. It should be fine to bold both if both articles are improved and expanded. If you think a nomination is nominating the wrong article to feature for a given story, then it should be possible to propose a different article be blurbed instead, though I'm not sure what the ideal process for that would be. Would be nice if we can incorporate a smooth !vote in the discussion for alternative articles, the same way we do for alt-blurbs. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• We might look at this more generally. ITN is currently a sea of blue as currently it has 99 words and 63 of them are blue. Faced with so much linkage, the reader isn't going to click on them all and so will tend to focus only on the bolded items. But it's not clear that this is good style and it doesn't have to be this way. For example, see the German language main page where they are more sparing with bold text, only using it for major headings and the featured article. That gives their page a quieter, less clamorous look. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The RD template says that anyone with a standalone article is "presumed to be important enough to post" and WP:ITNRD says that those that "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." I take this to mean that significance is suitable for discussion in the latter case as importance is not presumed. I believe this should also apply to the death of those covered by WP:1E, like the recent nom of Ian Huntley. Setting aside the EASTEREGG question, that nomination seems to have been posted with middling consensus amid some disregard for the validity of the opposition votes. There is also some prejudice in using the RD template in this case, as it discourages importance arguments which should be permitted. Question: should the death of persons without a standalone article (either of the musical group or 1E variety) be exempted from the presumption of importance, and does the current documentation (template and ITNRD) properly document consensus of this use case? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to explicitly allow (or disallow) subsections of articles to be posted as RDs. I believe that is what this comes down to. The question for RD is only "do we have enough and high enough quality description of who this person is?" We have to decide where the line for that is. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

My preference is that it should be explicitly permitted, but that it should lack the presumption in favour of posting that standalone biographies have, without any presumption against posting just because it's a subsection. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Case by case is needed, and will depend how much of a bio is present. RD does not say that not having a standalone prevents one from appearing in the RD line, but obviously if the only biographical aspects to a person areva couple of sentences in a largervarticle, that's likely not sufficient. I can see the case about a major disappear and murder of a victim, where thebsuspectvis caught, tried, and sentenced to prison, where the events of that are well covered as to have an extensive bio on the suspect, but per BLPCRIME we avoid creatingba standalone on the suspect. That suspect on their death, in this case, seems fine to include particularly if there is coverage of their death from multiple sources. Masem (t) 12:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

ITN has very few written guidelines, but WP:ITNRD is clear about requiring "a biographical Wikipedia article", not a page on murders like Soham murders. WP:IAR is fine, I just don't think there was a strong enough consensus with Huntley to override an established, documented practice. —Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, my concern was not that it was posted, but there seemed to be a theme in the supporting comments that it qualified under the presumption of importance, which it clearly did not. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

my reading of the criteria is that it does allow people who have biographical coverage on a larger article to appear on itn even if there is not an article dedicated to them without needing to invoke iar [as long as there is a consensus]. that is how it should be in my opinion. ~2026-16355-90 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC) [a regular editor who cannot log in due to a very broken keyboard]

A recent nomination of removing the Sudanese civil war and its timeline is stalling because the timeline article still receives a daily update of one or two sentences. This is not terrible, it's nice to be featuring the long-term ongoing work of Borgenland and other editors to keep this timeline updated. However, I'm not sure if indefinitely keeping a timeline article in the ITN section fits with WP:ITNPURPOSE or with Wikipedia's purpose as a whole. This is compounded by the fact that the main article we're featuring doesn't see regular updates at all. Do we expect readers to ignore the main article and jump into the timeline article every day? Does this "showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events" and "emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource"? I would like to propose removing subjects from Ongoing when only their timeline article is receiving regular updates, as I believe as a Wikipedia we should focus on featuring our encyclopedic articles instead. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I just don't feel like a timeline is really an encyclopedic article, nor does it represent the best recently-updated work we have to offer. Plus we apparently can't feature timelines at all without also indefinitely featuring an article that isn't being changed at all? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

To me, all of the current timeline articles do not represent WP's best work from an ITNQUALITY standpoint. Editors there are just dropping in any events that happen that day. Maybe in the very short term that might make sense, but more realistically, we should be far more narrative and prose-like, than list-like. Maybe for the Iran war its a bit too soon, but both Ukraine and Sudan have been going on long enough that these should be far better presented in narrative periods, which also means that every single event that happens is not necessarily going to be included. If we look to the COVID timelines, where there are dozens if not hundreds of (broken down by geography) those all are still in the proseline format, no attempt to actually summarize key events, and that's likely never going to be updated. I fear the same will happen here. We are meant to summarize, not to be the primary source of information. Masem (t) 12:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Masem and Maplestrip above. Quality issues are at play here: there should be both depth and frequency of updates in Ongoing articles. At least in this case, IMO the main article lacks the frequency and the timeline article lacks the depth that I would want from articles featured in the Ongoing section. Spencer^T•C 16:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

After reviewing the articles in question, I agree with what has been written above. Timelines are lists, not encyclopedia articles, and should not be featured in ITN. The Ongoing section has become overused. It should be reserved for events where lots of encyclopedically significant new developments keep occurring after the relevant blurb would otherwise drop out of the box, not just any ongoing conflict where fighting drags on. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• I started subscribing to the Weeklypedia recently which lists the articles with the most updates each week. FYI, here's the latest report. Note that the timeline which appears in this week's report is neither Ukraine nor Sudan nor Iran. It's still Gaza, which ITN has dropped because it is supposedly over! I reckon this data-driven approach is a more accurate way of highlighting what's getting the updates.

Notice also that ITN topics like Country Joe McDonald and the Soham murders appear in the list. I made a flurry of edits to Country Joe myself and so such activity is what causes these spikes. But these stats just count edits and these vary in size so YMMV. What's much harder to measure is the quality of the updates. I agree with Masem that we should prefer good analyses, explainers and summaries but Wikipedia's protean process produces these erratically, if at all.

From what I can tell, Bundesliga (Germany) and Liga A (Italy) (discussion discussion) and the Emmys (discussion) have been removed from ITNR without consensus. — jonas (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The Emmys appear to be present, but they do not appear to have a cited consensus to be added to ITN/R. I think there should be an effort to get every item on ITN/R a cited consensus to be on the list (many examples from the Ryder cup to Eurovision to the Grammys). Perhaps a formal discussion (the one linked took place during a pandemic season) for the retention of the domestic leagues should take place to remove the ambiguity here. Omnifalcon (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

We have only "recently" (like, within the last 10 years) have added points to consensus to add items to ITNR. Ones without sources should be assumed to have been acceptable on historical lists, and thus should not be removed without discussion to remove. Masem (t) 18:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

But it is also not a bad idea to make positive-consensus based checks on unsourced ones as to keep those too though that's likely best done in small, related groups at a time. Masem (t) 19:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO. Unless someone formally opposes its inclusion, we don't need a consensus to re-confirm an item's inclusion just for the sake of having one. —Bagumba (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Bundesliga appears to have been removed as a result of this discussion. Still haven't found how Liga A was removed. Left guide (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I can't find a revision where Liga A, whatever that's supposed to be, or Serie A has ever been on ITNR. The discussion above doesn't show consensus to add it. —Cryptic 19:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Emmy Awards is present at the current version of ITNR#Television. When/how was it removed? Left guide (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Back in September, I started an idea lab, advocating ITN nominations to be transcluded. To quote myself from then:

I've always been for this as a), I think that having a subpage for individual ITN noms could prolly aid in reforming the broken archive process by being able to just index noms instead of having them present in a single page and causing said page to cross the template limit and thus not load a good 25-35% of the page adequately.

Furthermore, it would make linking to specific noms easier; the current format of liking to subheadings means that changing said subheading (e.g, by adding (posted), (attention needed), (rd posted, blurb discussion continues), etc.) breaks any links to said nom, rendering linking to ITN noms (and templates that are based upon linking to noms such as {{ITN Note}}) cumbersome.

Thirdly, for any contentious topics area like Israel-Palestine, it would make community restrictions easier to enforce by just locking the page behind the specified period for said contentious topic. So we wouldn't have to investigate and check usernames for non EC editors on a Palestine discussion since they would be unable to comment by default.

There are other reasons like it combating accidental interference in other discussions or parts of the page, or possibly being a critical part in providing a more streamlined nomination process maybe similar to DYK or POD, but these are the primary reasons. I think it would make navigating and managing ITN a much more streamlined process, and there's a reason why every other part of the main page uses subpage noms instead of ITN's current system.

Of course, this is contingent on this roll out comming with, like the other sections of the main page, an easy way to nominate via the subpage model, likely similar to how DYK noms are created.

My current conception of it would be something like this. I think that this is a productive change, and it seems like most users there did as well. However, no action was taken. I'm resurrecting this discussion since there seems to be consensus in favor of it, meaning that all there is to be done is to formulate how this is implemented. — Knightoftheswords 16:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Usernamekiran:, who was selected to orchestrate the archiving of ITN postings two years ago and may as such be useful/provide insight in this regard. — Knightoftheswords 16:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

noting I've seen this conversation. I will actually read, and comment in 24ish hours. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Other reason I can think of: it might help with the topic subscribing being day-based rather than nom-based. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

... the current format of liking to subheadings means that changing said subheading (e.g, by adding (posted), (attention needed), (rd posted, blurb discussion continues), etc.) breaks any links to said nom ...: Actually, {{ITN candidate}} already creates an anchor using the nominated article's name. Therefore, for example, Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2026#(Closed) German fireball is also already accessible by Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2026#2026 Koblenz meteor. —Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Yep, but this isn't especially intuitive, and links to previous titles (which are the most likely to be used) will still break. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

In March 16 there's a nomination for the 2026 Cuban crisis. This has not gone smoothly and has now been pulled from the main page. Some points of order arise which indicate that ITN's procedures may need attention:

1. The nomination was marked as "Ready" when, in my view, it wasn't. Perhaps there should be a formal set of criteria for this so that busy admins are not misled.

2. One of the !votes was hatted with the reason just being a link to WP:SOAP. I reverted the {{hat}} as disruptive but the other editor has edit-warred the hat back on without discussion. The !vote in question was an oppose and so hiding this may have contributed to the post/pull confusion.

My view is that such hatting is quite disruptive because:

1. It tries to claim authority for a point of view which is not warranted if the hatter is not an admin
2. This then tends to lead to conflict and drama with the editor whose !vote is being suppressed
3. It attracts attention to the comment rather than removing it
4. It generates extra work for editors who have to click through to read the !vote or may otherwise miss it

So, perhaps we should have some specific guidance about this.

The two admins involved in this one were @Schwede66 and Left guide:. Please could they say what they made of this and whether it contributed to the confusion.

Andrew🐉(talk) 12:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

The specific comment (not the !vote part) is unwarranted and uncivil for WP discussion anywhere. There's ways to say what the comment was trying to say without actually going that extreme, and the essence of the comment is one I'm sure shared by many. Mind you, such comments (overall, not from the user specifically) have started coming up more often at ITN (that is, insulting or derogatory comments directed at the topic of the ITNC, rather than articulated reasoning) and we do need to warn and stop that to keep discussion civil. If we don't take to handle it, we get into nationalistic edit wars and similar problems.

That said, I dont think it appropriate to hat those, as long as it is not a flagrant violation of something NPA or completely off topic. A warning to the editor, absolutely, but hatting the comment probably is too far given the !vote was still in essence on topic. Masem (t) 13:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I made nothing of it, having had no involvement in posting, pulling, or judging the consensus of this blurb. I simply restored an unrelated recent blurb as a matter of housekeeping. FWIW WP:TALKOFFTOPIC (the guideline point on hatting) says:

Your idea of what is off topic might differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution.

Our dispute resolution procedures generally advise to first discuss disagreements with the other user, in this case @Knightoftheswords281: (courtesy ping), who might be interested in explaining further here. Left guide (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Left guide:, it's been common practice for years on ITN to hat disruptive/WP:SOAP comments, although I do think that it has become less common since I joined ITN in 2023. Granted, I think that's partially since the civility issues seem to have subsided a tad bit since, but I do still think that (especially when ITN has faced threats of dissolution from the community in large part to this) that uncivil, SOAPY behavior should be clamped down upon. I've noticed that Nfitz (talk · contribs) in particular has a habit of engaging in this behavior whenever something US related comes up, even up to factoring into his decision to support or oppose an ITN item, which as Masem (talk · contribs) states, isn't really articulated reasoning. — Knightoftheswords 19:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I've searched the 20 year history of ITN/C. I found few references to WP:SOAP and and just one prior case of hatting – Lucy Letby. That was also done by Knightoftheswords281 and so this seems limited to him alone. Their claim that it is "common practice for years" seems dubious as, by their own account, they haven't been here that long. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

(Ironically) in their defence, @Andrew Davidson, what they hatted a couple of years ago was a 9-post argument that started with a comment that was name-calling and a personal attack - completely out of no where. If that's not drama, I don't know what is. This is very different, given the comment that seems to have troubled KOTS was neutral, factual, and didn't refer to any other poster; and had stood with no other comment for days before KOTS started the drama themselves. I think they need to reconsider their actions. Nfitz (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I've checked the details of that case. What happened was that Letby was posted and then pulled in an earlier nomination. This seemed to be because initial supports were then shouted down by editors who didn't like it being mainly a UK story. Jayron32 correctly pointed out that such opposition was contrary to explicit ITN guidance and so their argument was appropriate. Hatting this strong, policy-based argument was therefore quite improper. See WP:SUPERHAT which explains how hatting is often disruptive in this way. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I would further note that Jayron32 was a 20 year editor and admin who now seems to have given up on Wikipedia. The exact reasons seem unclear but they stopped editing not long after this incident. They seem to be active on the internet elsewhere but my impression is that they found Wikipedia to be dysfunctional and places like ITN (and the Reference Desk) would be prime suspects in this. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

When TRM was doing his weird Americophobia a few years ago that led to him being T-banned from ITN, he was hatted as a WP:SOAP. Granted, it was using the {{cot}} instead of {{hat}}, which seems to be the main way of hatting (ironically) on ITN. — Knightoftheswords 19:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

How, @Knightoftheswords281, is a neutral reference to the USA's actions, "drama". Surely if there was drama going on, there'd have been a response to my oppose after 3 days, before you chose to censor my vote. And surely, you are the only one who has created drama here. It's a hardly controversial. The US blockade of a friendly peaceful nation (including of the USA's supposed allies) is not only a complete violation of international law, it will kill innocent people. How you can object to something that might (or might not) imply a negative view of this I don't know. Nowhere did I even offer an opinion on whether this terrorism was good or bad; that would be necessary for there to be drama! Perhaps (or perhaps not) you have different views on decline of democracy and rise of autocracy in that nation - but that doesn't mean you can censor votes and hat material simply noting facts. Nfitz (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

A note: We as WP editors cannot be making legal conclusions. I know many experts call the blockade a violation of international law, but until that's actually tried in court, you can only point to the claims of the experts, not an absolute. Masem (t) 22:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Legal conclusions??? Perhaps in wikivoice if there isn't sources - but check the English dictionary @Masem; Terrorism 2.a simply says "The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". Are you saying that this isn't unauthorized use of intimidation in the pursuit of political aims? I'm hardly reaching here. 2.b says "In extended or weakened use: the instilling of fear or terror; intimidation, coercion, bullying." Are you saying that this isn't bullying? (for reference the only other definition is only historical to the 1700s. Look at the most recent example given "The inability of teachers to stop this schoolyard terrorism" in 2004 in the Herald Sun; do you think that this was a legal opinion? To have any concerns about the usage, you must assume a very narrow and sensational definition of the word; which wouldn't be acting in good faith. You also must assume that terrorism is considered a negative, while in some occasions it is viewed as a positive (or do we oppose the French resistance?). Nfitz (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so why don't you add the term "terrorism" in 2026 Cuban crisis? @Nfitz:.

I guess the intervention in Kosovo by NATO was also terrorism (while Libya wasn't). Everyone here has seen your prior comments, enough to know that your use of terrorism in this context was clearly not neutral at all. — Knightoftheswords 00:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't tend to edit such political articles, @Knightoftheswords281, it would be pointy to do so. I've not looked at it, and personally I find those conflict articles abhorrent with all the glorification by war geeks. I have other geekery that more interests me. I'm not sure what's with the personal attacks. I'm not sure how illegal US actions that kills Cubans has any comparison to Kosovo. My recollection is that action in Kosovo was in support of United Nations resolutions, with United Nations approval, along with the co-operations of dozens of other nations, in accordance with international law. There's no UN resolutions relating to Cuba, and very little to any support for the terrorism in Cuba by other countries that is clearly an violation of international law. I can't see how you can claim that Americans aren't bullying and trying to intimidate Cuba, NATO, and pretty much any other country that trades with Cuba. You are new here, so I'd suggest that you, yourself, stop bullyng and terrorizing, start AGF, and buy a proper dictionary. Nfitz (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Kosovo was done explicitly without UN approval (and was even somewhat controversial as such). Point is that this willy nilly use of terrorism on ITN is SOAPY and frankly disruptive as well. And I find it interesting that I'm being accused of WP:PA and being told to WP:AGF when you're now accusing me of bullyng and terrorizing because I said that you shouldn't be basing !votes on your own personal opinions on a topic? Also the AJ article you linked only mentioned a Cuban official saying it was terroristic, which is what you implied by labeling it as a "terrorist act." @Nfitz:. — Knightoftheswords 02:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

My vote was based on the power failure being the 5th in 18 months, and therefore not related to the embargo; please don't make up things; this was clear in my post. Also, I certainly have not referred to any terrorist acts. Terrorist is a different word than terrorism and has an emphasis on violence that's not present in the word terrorism. One might talk of the terrorism of young children in the school yard, but I don't think one would call them terrorist. Once again, I'd suggest buying a better dictionary. As for Kosovo, I have no recollection of the UN voting against NATO; this was long after the UN reported on ethnic cleansing and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced refugees. I don't know how that's remotely comparable to Cuba, where I'm not aware of any ethnic cleansing or internal displacements, or UN reports on war crimes; or even what Cuba has particularly done in the last 18 months that would even trigger any actions by the USA against a friendly, peaceful, nation. Please stop with the unsubstantiated claims and AGF failure. Nfitz (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

As I understand it, the case of Gaza genocide was based on expert opinions rather than a court case. And there are similar expert opinions in the case of Cuba. For example, UN experts condemn US executive order imposing fuel blockade on Cuba. So, Nfitz's view seems to be fair comment and we can't have US editors shutting this down here just because they don't like to hear such criticism of their country. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson:, few, if any experts have described the blockade of Cuba as "terroristic." Certainly not the vast majority of them, unlike the Gaza case (which is indeed you can argue is "US terrorism" to a greater extent than Cuba, unless we view the treatment of Russia after the invasion of Ukraine as "terrorism"). — Knightoftheswords 00:47, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe that I used the word "terroristic". Major international media are certainly reporting on the terrorism practiced - and apparently supported - by Americans, even using the words terrorism and intimidation. I'm puzzled what your issue is here, but I suggest that you AGF and stop the personal attacks. Nfitz (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

That article is quoting a Cuban official using the term. It is not in Al Jazeera's voice. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not Wikipedia's voice, @GreatCaesarsGhost! What next, do we apply the MOS to comments? Nfitz (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't say you were Wikipedia's voice, I was countering your claim that media were using the term in their own voice. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:45, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough then, for the example I gave. Nfitz (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Its one thing to follow what experts say particularly after the community has also agreed to follow the experts as the case of the Gaza genocide. But we don't yet have the actions being taken by the US towards Cuba being called "terrorism" by experts. Mind you, I'm American, and I would personally agree we can liken the actions to terrorism, but for purposes of ITN, I'd still be careful to call that out that explicitly as that's contentious language and doesn't address anything towards why we shouldn't post or not post the blurb; the blurb that I suggested noted that the grid failure was a result of the US blockade as supported by sources, and that's all that needed to be said. For the same general reasons, it would be calling any ITN item involving the British Royal Family as as a dismissive "absolute puffery" in terms of the attitude towards the national issues, and not addressing the merit of the blurb. ITN needs calmer heads, and its best to avoid language that could ignite aggressive debate. I still don't agree that it needed to be hatted or changed, and just left alone; only just -- we should just avoid using inflammatory language not directly discussed by the sources for the blurb. Masem (t) 04:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why terrorism would be considered inflammatory language. We've glorified violent partisan terrorism, even recently (heck, it remains an option in some main-stream war plans by advanced democracies). Moreover though - one has to assume a much narrower definition than what a dictionary has to get to anywhere close to being inflammatory. Is the discussion of terrorism (by children) in the the schoolyard, inflammatory? Nfitz (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Such words are contentious per MOS:TERRORIST. But we have to deal with such topics at ITN and so should not be heavy-handed by trying to micromanage the discussions about them. For example, we have just posted 2026 Maiduguri bombings which is categorised as a terrorist incident. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

If reliable sources are using those words, sure, we can't avoid them both in blurbs and discussion, like with the Gaza genocide case. But if we're inventing the use of contentious terms that aren't directly used by reliable sources, even if some editors feel they should apply, that's where it can be an issue. This is both related to civil discussion issues, as well as to prevent throwing in original research on subjective POV terms. We're already having that as a wide problem on WP in regards to covering breaking news on event articles, we don't need it extended into ITN as well. Masem (t) 11:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not difficult to find a reliable source which uses such language about the matter – see Al Jazeera, for example. We should focus on what such spokesmen and sources are saying rather than worrying about the wording of our internal discussions. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

That's a case where one of the principle parties here said the term, not a uninvolved third party, which is what wed used to use such terms per NPOV Masem (t) 13:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Ping me when every single word in ITN needs to be in wikivoice. Besides - ECFR has literally called such things American bullying and intimidatinon - literally comparing them to playground bullies. This is literally the dictionary definition of the word terrorism. I remain perplexed @Masem how using a three syllable word to replace nine syllables is a big deal! I'm also perplexed why you and the they don't think there's American intimidation and bullying. Nfitz (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The implications of intimidation and bullying and not the same as the implications of terrorism, the latter usually associated with specific and direct destructive/deadly actions. Masem (t) 17:07, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

As we've discussed, intimidation and bullying are literally the main extant definition of terrorism. I'd suggest @Masem that you consult the dictionary before criticizing others over words that your usage differs from the dictionary. Nfitz (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Without context outside of being at ITN, most people are going to read "terrorism" and think about suicide bombers, 9/11, Oct 9, and a whole host of other violent and destructive acts, things that "intimidation and bullying" do not even approach, nor (yet) an accurate description of what the US is doing w.r.t. Cuba (Iran is a whole different story). Maybe the dictionary definition suggests they are similar, but being aware of one's choice of words and their context is very important to keep discussions civil. Masem (t) 04:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Better yet - let's reject people coming up with their own definitions. I think you are confusing 'terrorism' with 'terrorist'. Do you think one shouldn't say that a town was terrorized with a rise in crime, or that a child is a little terror? Nfitz (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Terrorism isn't listed at MOS:TERRORIST, @Andrew Davidson. Terrorist is listed, but that word has a very much narrower definition; I certainly wouldn't have used it ... it wouldn't really cover just intimidation and bullying. Either way ... MOS is for wikivoice. Not that I disagree with you. Nfitz (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

One could AGF that you did not originally intend "Terrorism" as a value-laden word. However, your continued abuse of a horse carcass in this thread has made your meaning clear. WP:GFISNOT also exists. Terrorism/Terrorist a term explicitly and exclusively used to malign those the speaker disagrees with. It is inappropriate to use them here, where objectiveness is required. MOS does not apply to talk pages, but NOTHERE does. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

So you oppose the terrorism that the French resistance carried out in World War II, User:GreatCæsarsGhost or exists or is being added to various NATO countries defence plans? The word itself is neutral, and the usage and context were neutral - and didn't even spark any debate until one user decided days later to censor it - I'd say that user is showing the lack of objectiveness and incomprehension of the English language - not me. Nfitz (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

You're continuing to be intentionally obtuse. No one is talking about actions that may be described as terrorism; we are talking about use of the word: WHO is using the word and WHOM they are talking about. It is exclusively used by the speaker to express a negative opinion of the target. That's the way you used it: to condemn American action you personally object to. Drop the stick. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Personally @GreatCaesarsGhost? Is there any person who doesn't have a negative inclination to blatant violations of international law and terrorizing each and every nation in the rest of North American and Europe with threats of invasion and sanctions. Perhaps some of our general negativity about rogue nations threatening to invade us has crept into the drama here, but there was nothing in the original post and censorship. Y'all have decided to create drama out of ignorance of the English language. Drop the stick! Nfitz (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Clearly everyone here needs to drop the stick. This discussion has devolved from whether the statement should be hatted to a linguistics semantics discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed - though that was always the discussion AFAIK. Nfitz (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

PS. With all the concern about the implications of the word terrorism, someone should go confirm Economic terrorism is in line. Reading that, I should have probably said USA warfare not terrorism - which is line with our Blockade article saying that a blockade is an act of war. I must admit, I thought that warfare would be seen as negative bias - but I guess I'm wrong about that! Nfitz (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• In the end, I think this is yet another thing that should more or less fall to the general discretion of the mods SOAP concerns aside, I think comments should only be hatted if they are being viewed by mods as categorically unproductive to the conversation. While I think using the term "terrorism" to describe this situation is inapt, I don't think it did or would have derailed the conversation as much as the hatting debate did, all due respect to KotS for their desire to avoid such a dispute. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  But who are the "mods"? There are lots of self-appointed mods who make non-admin closures. One reason for this is that the actual admins don't seem keen to stick their neck out and so you get hotheads making NACs instead. The person I wanted to hear from most here was Schwede66 as they were the main admin for the nomination in question. They were pinged but haven't said a word. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, busy IRL. Usually, before I post something, I have a read of the target article, making sure that it's truly ready etc. I didn't do that in this case, hence I missed that the blackout was already over. I had assumed that it was ongoing, hence I listed it with the date of my posting rather than the date of it having been nominated. I wasn't swayed by the hatted comment in the assessment whether this was ready. Schwede66 20:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for commenting but I'm not quite understanding your last point. Please clarify whether you read hatted comments and whether you attach any weight to the hatting or form your own opinion of the comments' validity. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  To be fair @Schwede66 - shortly after you removed, it, they had another power failure! Damned if you do ... Nfitz (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2026 (UTC)