Talk:Media blackout

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socially-unpopular media blackout[edit]

In some cases, media fails to cover a topic because its a socially unpopular subject (e.g. extreme left/right wing) such as in the case of the Kermit Gosnell abortion trial, where it was clearly unpopular in the pro-choice movement:

"Writing for The Washington Post, Melinda Henneberger responded that "we didn’t write more because the only abortion story most outlets ever cover in the news pages is every single threat or perceived threat to abortion rights. In fact, that is so fixed a view of what constitutes coverage of that issue that it’s genuinely hard, I think, for many journalists to see a story outside that paradigm as news. That’s not so much a conscious decision as a reflex, but the effect is one-sided coverage". Explaining why some of her colleagues did not report on the story, Henneberger wrote, "One colleague viewed Gosnell’s alleged atrocities as a local crime story, though I can’t think of another mass murder, with hundreds of victims, that we ever saw that way. Another said it was just too lurid, though that didn’t keep us from covering Jeffrey Dahmer, or that aspiring cannibal at the NYPD."[140] Writing for Bloomberg View, Jeffrey Goldberg said that this story "upsets a particular narrative about the reality of certain types of abortion, and that reality isn’t something some pro-choice absolutists want to discuss".

I just realized that "blackouts" can be due to forces other than mandates, etc... but realize there's no existing terminology to describe this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 18:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


"Blackout" is racist[edit]

Removed link about The Christian and Newsom murders. There's no evidence that any "blackout" (which is a racist term) is in effect, maybe the news is just not interesting, and posting such a link here seems very racist to me.

  • "Blackout" is a racist term??? New one on me. I thought its etymology was from covering a printed page with black ink to literally make the page black. Or are you suggesting that any term which has "black" in it must somehow be racist? No opinion about the murders having a news blackout. LaughingVulcan Laugh With Me / Logical Entries 00:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Fact Tags[edit]

Added several fact tags for unreferenced allegations of media blackouts throughout history. LaughingVulcan Laugh With Me / Logical Entries 01:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder[edit]

Removed link again, not because of the Truth of it, but because no reference was cited for including it as a "See Also" example per WP:V:

"Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: 'I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.'"

I don't want to get involved in the edit war. If someone wants to restore it, fine and great and be my guest. But I'd request that it be restored and not reverted (to avoid removing the other Fact requests,) and if it is restored, please add a citation demonstrating how the murder connects to a media blackout. Thanks! LaughingVulcan Laugh With Me / Logical Entries 01:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigh... So much for hoping that the Talk page would be used for discussion... it was just added again, with no citation. Rather than plain reverting it, I'm going to add the word "alleged," and let the link stand, along with a note to the contributing editor this time around. LaughingVulcan Laugh w/ Me or Logical Entries 17:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations?[edit]

How can one expect a citation of a media blackout? It is little more than asking for proof that something (in this case, a particular news organization's coverage of an event) does not exist. If it does not exist, you cannot find evidence of it's non-existance.

167.104.7.4 (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've taken the trouble to find sources and simply removed two citation requests that I believe were unnecessary. Freikorp (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law template[edit]

I think there should be a law template on this article, since it involve actions of government officials or civil servants being the only persons capable of issuing a blackout on the media.

88.105.20.89 (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separate "Black on White Atrocities section[edit]

This falls under "examples." There's no need for a separate section and the title "Black on White Atrocities" is dramatic and ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.172.226 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not include the climate gate in this section?[edit]

There was a blatant three week media blackout due to the Copenhagen summit of 2009. Of course, I think we should include it because, we don't want people to think that wikipedia blacksout sourced and cited material, do we? 75.34.16.67 (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.16.67 (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get some reliable sources to cite it, then it might be considered. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Day 12 Occupy Wall Street September 28 2011 Shankbone 31.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Day 12 Occupy Wall Street September 28 2011 Shankbone 31.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media black out of DC Motorcycle Ride on Sept 11th.[edit]

The most recent media blackout was the September 11th motorcycle ride into DC that was not covered on national t.v. or in newspapers. 108.43.192.230 (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Media blackout. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File nominated for deletion on commons[edit]

The file c:File:Day 12 Occupy Wall Street September 28 2011 Shankbone 31.JPG used in this article has been nominated for deletion but was kept

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Biden[edit]

Let's discuss this here. A media blackout is censorship of a news story. If a story is reported on in the media, it is not a blackout. Speculation about why so-termed "large" outlets will not report on a story is not a blackout. Not to mention large outlets - Salon, Vox, Huffington Post - did report on the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvatarQX (talk • contribs) 02:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there have been no sources calling it a media blackout. Sources have noted that right-wing publications have been publishing the allegations - "Reade's story has garnered some coverage elsewhere, most noticeably from The Hill and The Intercept. Some left-leaning news sites—The Huffington Post, Vox—have written about it, and of course conservative media are all over the story." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvatarQX (talk • contribs) 02:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion about what is and is not a media blackout is irrelevant. All we care about is whether reliable sources describe it as one. Which they have.
  • "The most striking thing about Ms Reade’s story may be the silence with which it has been greeted—particularly from some of those who argued that a sexual-assault allegation should disqualify Brett Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court." Source: The Economist
  • "Why is the paper of record now declining to publicize a very troubling allegation against former Vice President Joe Biden? The Times is hardly alone in this regard. The mainstream media have remained bafflingly silent about Tara Reade, a former member of then-Senator Biden's staff who claims that he sexually assaulted her in 1993." Source: Reasom magazine
  • "Rightwing news outlets have gleefully seized upon the accusations against Biden; the story has also been discussed by leftwing commentators. However, the mainstream media has largely ignored the allegations." Source: The Gaurdian
--Guy Macon (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A media blackout doesn't mean a certain source will not report on the story. It means the story AS A WHOLE is not getting reported on. Considering it has been published in The Hill, Salon, Vox, Huffington Post, and others, it is clearly getting reported on.

None of the quotes you just gave me define "censorship by the media" which is what a media blackout is. None of your sources use the word blackout. They are upset certain sites are not publicizing the allegations, but that is not a blackout. Considering this page needs to be factual, you need to find a reliable source directly calling this a media blackout, which you have not done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvatarQX (talk • contribs) 02:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking for a dispute resolution, as this is going nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvatarQX (talk • contribs) 02:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – AvatarQX, you may want to revisit the way you're defining and using the term "blackout". It's an act of suppression, not necessarily elimination. Some news coverage can exist in a media blackout situation (see it defined). Whether or not a subject's media coverage is sufficient can be a subjective position, which brings me to my next point. While the term exists and has been used in reliable sources to describe suppressed coverage, I'm not sure the article's topic merits having a dedicated article, or at the very least, is written from the right perspective. It approaches soapbox territory, with the appearance of advancing fringe minority viewpoints with very few scholarly sources cited (in fact, maybe only this one counts). This isn't a list article, yet nearly 80% of the article is focused on compiling examples. The debate in this thread won't solve the larger problem here, and in fact, may just add to it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article seems politically motivated. Thank you for the source. I suppose I was referring to the "keep from public knowledge" part of the "suppressing" definition - also from Merriam-Webster, as clearly this has not been kept from public knowledge. I agree that suppression has a subjective definition, so I'm not sure including a highly contentious "example" is the best thing to do. --AvatarQX (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to add that the 3b definition specifically mentions "a news blackout" as an example and defining it as "a blotting out by censorship". To blot out is to "make obscure, insignificant, or inconsequential". I think in that sense it's pretty clear that some level of existence can occur. Blacking something out is more about the attempt to obscure and not so much the level of obscurity that has been achieved. But yes in this specific case (and many others), it's still subjective any way you slice it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, just noticed that 2 of the 3 sources above from Guy Macon, The Economist and The Guardian, are left-leaning politically in the UK. I find it interesting that they are making these observations about the left in the US. May add some unbiased weight to the argument "for" inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoneIn60, the left in the US is the centre-right everywhere else, and Biden is actually quite right-wing by our standards. Guy (help!) 12:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guy: Thanks for the clarification. Are you saying that those 2 sources are not liberal news outlets? I get that the average UK liberal is more left of center than the average US liberal, but I'm not sure that changes the point I was making. In fact, it may even further solidify it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So an example of a media blackout cant be cited unless it has a news outlet reporting on it. So if a story isnt reported on by the media because it is of a blackout, that story cant be used as an example in this page. Don't you see how this creates a paradox? I added the Biden story because CNN, NBC, ABC news, Wapo and the NYT *still* havent reported on the story. What piece of relevant, American news doesnt get coverage my the MSM? It's clearly a media blackout in regards to the MSM. Adamwashere (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, we wouldn't use news sources for examples of media blackouts, and we certainly shouldn't include examples that would not not meet WP:10YT. The hypothetical Tara Reade media blackout is not an actual blackout; it's reliable sources making sound editorial decisions based on investigative reporting. - MrX 🖋 11:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamwashere, see WP:NOR. No, we do not get to portray the failure of news media to cover a story we want covered, as a media blackout. We need, as always, reliable independent sources calling it that. Guy (help!) 12:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems nuts to me, we're using sources that don't use the term media blackout to call something a media blackout[edit]

So I've raised this at WP:RSN#Media blackout - what sources do we need to include something in this article? with a mention at BLPN. To me this looks like a BLP issue fueled more by politics than anything else. Doug Weller talk 06:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I am completely confused as to how that is allowed to stay up. Not a single one of the sources refers to a media blackout, either by name or by definition. All of them mention places where the story has been reported. --AvatarQX (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the other entries in the list and notice how few have citations that use the exact term "media blackout"? Are you prepared to argue that those should be removed as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article almost certainly is poorly constructed, it should be a discussion of the concept, not just a long list of alleged cases. But on the Biden example it's clear that it includes far more sources describing the controversy than it does sources describing it as a media blackout, of which there are possibly none at all. And consensus hasn't even emerged yet at Talk:Joe Biden for the Reade issue to be mentioned there. This was recently added contentious material about a BLP, and should be discussed before reinserted.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: yes of course. Doug Weller talk 08:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the above two responses, I would not object if we had a discussion that decided what the criteria for inclusion is, and I would have no problem if the consensus was for a criteria for inclusion that either includes or excludes the Biden allegations. The thing is, (and of course Amakuru and Doug Weller will doubtless agree with this) we would need to set criteria for inclusion that are best for the article in the face of certain editors who might want to custom-bake a set of criteria for inclusion designed to either include or exclude the Biden allegations. To that end I am going to create a new section asking about criteria for inclusion.

Criteria for inclusion[edit]

I propose that we come up with a set of criteria for inclusion and create a FAQ or perhaps a box at the top of the talk page explaining whatever we decide. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any event claimed to be a media blackout needs sufficient reliable sources calling it a media blackout Otherwise they should be removed - our sourcing policy and WP:NOR makes this pretty obvious. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Doug Weller. Our WP:NOR and WP:V policy is crystal clear — any event claimed to be a media blackout needs sufficient reliable sources (not op-eds or opinion blogs) directly calling it a media blackout, press blackout, etc. We absolutely cannot infer or synthesize. As JzG mentioned in some edit summaries, failure of an item to gain media traction is not a "media blackout." Nor is incomplete early reporting a "media blackout." A blackout is something directly and explicitly stated by high-quality reliable sources (preferably multiple reliable sources) to be one, such as the Chinese government-imposed blackout of coverage of the 2011 Wenzhou train collision (NYT: "Media Blackout in China After Wreck") or the Indian government-imposed blackout of the 2019–20 Jammu and Kashmir lockdown (AP/Globe & Mail: "India easing clampdown and media blackout after stripping Kashmir of autonomy"). Neutralitytalk 14:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this, although I think that we could consider it equivalent when reliable sources claim organized censorship... Maybe worthwhile mentioning, the lead currently fails to address that it can also be an accusation (it assumes a discussion of actual blackout events only, uncritically). —PaleoNeonate – 02:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preliminary opinion (which is likely to change in many ways as others comment): First, I don't think we should require the exact words "media blackout". I don't think that anyone used that term During World War II when talking about sightings of fire balloons. A close paraphrase that says substantively the same thing should be enough. Second, I have my doubts about the Biden case; is a media blackout by The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN really a media blackout if The Guardian, The Economist, Salon, and Vox don't participate in the blackout? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Critics of media coverage in the Tara Reade case have made it clear they are referring to U.S.-based orgs considered to be left-leaning, and unabashedly call out the NYT, CNN, MSNBC and the Washington Post specifically. It's not clear how this could fit within the confines of Media blackout, there is unfortunately a bit of nuance. petrarchan47คุก 22:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd think that if there was what we would call a media blackout during WWII recent sources would use the phrase. And yes, of course something discussed in mainstream sources hasn't been subject to a media blackout. That is blazingly obvious. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, examples where "media blackout" or "press blackout" are applied to historical events in retrospect should count. For example, With the existing media blackout, most Bulgarians never grasped the extent of the damage (referring to bombings in 1944). Or, US authorities hushed up the attacks and ordered a media blackout to prevent the Japanese knowing that their experimental weapons were in fact reaching the US (regarding the Japanese fire balloons). Or, referring to an event a couple decades more recent, By early 1963, Little Rock merchants negotiated a phased desegregation plan, which went forward under cover of a face-saving media blackout [1]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering "media blackout" is not a rare term, I don't think it is too much to ask that we have multiple reliable sources referring to it as such. I also believe that sources that are clearly politically motivated (op-eds, articles from biased sources) should not be included here. Here is a modern-day example of a living person ordering a media blackout - and you'll notice it's clearly defined as such in multiple reliable sources ("Trump issues EPA media blackout and suspends agency’s grants" (PBS), "Trump admin orders EPA media blackout and contract freeze" (CBS), "Media Blackout Ordered For EPA Employees During Trump Transition" (NPR)). Clearly the media is able to tell what is and isn't a media blackout, and they use the term itself, so if it's not explicitly getting called one, I propose it gets excluded. --AvatarQX (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Doug Weller and Neutrality, and would add that we should lean away from contemporary pop media sources as much as possible and original research obviously needs to remain out. - MrX 🖋 15:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that Neutrality puts the point particularly well. Claiming that one's opponent is suppressing the truth is a common rhetorical ploy, and as encyclopedists, we should aim to provide something better than an indiscriminate heap of instances where an op-ed opinionated that The Mainstream Media were burying a story. If a case is important enough for us to include, then secondary sources will exist that evaluate those assertions. This article is not the place for examples where a story was covered by some major news organizations but not all, or where a story was given less weight at the time than it turned out in retrospect to deserve, or where the headline and the lede put a misleading spin on the facts while the key point was buried in graf 23. XOR'easter (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the article intended to be a list or an article about media blackouts? I would be inclined to only include perhaps 2-3 historical and 2-3 modern examples and only examples identified as such by articles/sources about the topic not articles that say, "the media is blacking out coverage of this current event". If we leave this open to including a list of modern blackouts or alleged blackouts it's likely to turn into yet another topic where people will edit war about what is and isn't a legitimate blackout etc. Springee (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In full agreement that Neutrality puts it perfectly. As such, I'd propose a four-stage test:
— 1) Has one month passed since the event (or the start of the event) in question?
— 2) Are three or more reliable sources published at least one month since the event (or start of the event) referring to a lack of coverage as a 'media blackout', 'press blackout', or an analogous term?
— 3) Does the reference to the term appear in an op-ed—if so—if so, this is disqualifies the source
— 4) Is the source itself directly stating that there has been a 'media blackout', or is it stating that some body or entity has referred to it as such or is referring to it as such? EDIT: If it is the latter, the source is disqualified.
I think it very important that Wikipedia doesn't rush to attach a loaded term to any such event prematurely. While I agree with Springee that this article shouldn't aim to be an exhaustive list of media blackouts, I think that it's still useful to clarify at least internally what will and won't be considered a blackout. Domeditrix (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC). EDITED: Domeditrix (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support the above criteria for inclusion. I would add some language specifying that we are defining what is and is not allowed, not saying that everything that meets the criteria should be included. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with these criteria. They are an excellent summary of WP:NOR as applied to this specific topic. Guy (help!) 18:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not agree with the portion of #4 that reads "... or is it stating that some body or entity has referred to it as such or is referring to it as such". Also, any criteria should be the minimum threshold for inclusion and should still be subject to WP:ONUS. - MrX 🖋 18:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is a common political tactic, especially in countries where freedom of the press is assumed, to attempt to convince others that a political opponent is up to nefarious ends. I think the source itself must refer to the media blackout (e.g., there is evidence that such-and-such has ordered a media blackout). Although, reporting on a media blackout in the media with reference to an ongoing current event sort of defeats the whole idea of a media blackout, but maybe that's a discussion for another time. --AvatarQX (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I meant to add something else to that criteria! Will edit it in now and make it obvious where the edit was made. Domeditrix (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article isn't a list, it's a general discussion of the topic. As such, only the most notable examples of media blackouts should be mentioned in the article. Ideally, we would take these examples from academic experts on the topic or other high-quality sources that discuss media blackouts in general, rather than constructing examples from brief mentions or media accounts (I think it's pretty obvious that newspapers won't be a good source for this article). The goal is to inform readers about the phenomenon, not provide a comprehensive, up-to-date list of all media blackouts. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Springee and Red Rock. This page is an article about media blackouts, not a list of all media blackouts, so the inclusion criteria above (which I think would be fine for a list) should be much stricter. We should pick like 3 historical and 3 modern examples, and those examples should come directly from sources about media blackouts (which, obviously, use examples themselves). There is zero need for us to determine whether something was or was not a media blackout, in this article – we should take the examples straight from the sources, without looking for any new examples of our own. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with previous two responses. As I also noted two sections up, this article was turning into an exhaustive list of examples as opposed to discussing the topic on broad terms (its meaning, history, etc). Narrowing it down to 2-3 historical and 2-3 modern examples is a good idea and would likely cancel the debate being discussed above on whether or not to include the recent Biden example; I don't think it would fall into the top 3 modern. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoneIn60, but if we do that, within a week there will be a list of media blackouts and we'll have to have the same debate again, so let's settle it now. Guy (help!) 10:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, the criteria for inclusion in a standard article is obviously more strict than it is for a stand-alone list article. Any debate over inclusion has the potential of ending with different results depending on which type is hosting said debate. As for a list article cropping up, better to cross that bridge when the time comes. The Biden discussion above has tapered off for the most part anyway, waiting on an outcome at Talk:Joe Biden#RfC: Should Tara Reade's...
Anyone that still wants it mentioned in this article can feel free to continue the discussion. I was just making the observation that it wouldn't likely be a fruitful one for inclusionists. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. Exactly the same policies apply. WP:NOR does not have an exception for lists. Guy (help!) 12:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring to a technicality backed explicitly by policy. I'm referring to the length of lists in standard articles vs stand-alone lists. Stand-alone lists will naturally contain more examples, so the threshold for inclusion is essentially less strict. It's just common sense. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoneIn60, no, I don't think the criteria would or should be any different. The threshold of WP:UNDUE changes but the requirement of WP:NOR does not. Guy (help!) 14:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The overarching point being made involves the difference between a standard article and a stand-alone list, and how inclusion naturally differs between the two. I think you get it but still feel inclined to point out an issue with the way I used "criteria". Congratulations for accomplishing that, but I have no interest in continuing this pedantic argument. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No idea why you think that, my point is really simple: the discussion above will set valid criteria for this article and any potential list. Any additional questions of inclusion here of specific cases that meet the criteria are a matter for editorial judgment. If you don't think this addresses your point then fine, but I read you as arguing that this discussion is moot, and I don't think it is. Guy (help!) 19:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that was the problem. This discussion has addressed two areas of concern: 1) Determine the criteria of inclusion for media blackout examples 2) Reduce and/or limit the number of examples we have in this article. My comments were in regard to #2, agreeing with others that addressed that point. We need more prose and less list. The Biden comment was not meant to distract from that, and we're better off disregarding it for now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just so it's clear, I was commenting on how the article looked a couple days ago: 03:23, April 10, 2020. A lot of that has already been cleaned up apparently. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoneIn60, Ah, right. Yes, that was mainly me, I think. It seems we may be in violent agreement. Guy (help!) 22:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good job blacking out the list of blacked out news stories![edit]

Wouldn't want anyone to see examples of the kinds of things that are being blacked out, would we? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC) If anyone would like to view the pre-blacked out version of the article, you can do so here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_blackout&oldid=899650490 Ghostofnemo (talk)[reply]

1 weird example that probably doesn't qualify, but maybe should be mentioned[edit]

I'm not sure what this is, really. "https://www.conchovalleyhomepage.com/news/deadly-social-media-blackout-challenge-resurfaces-more-child-deaths-reported/" As far as I can tell, it is a spam campaign meant as smokescreen for discussion of actual media blackouts. I could be wrong. I was hoping somebody would tell me I'm being crazy or say its possible. It probably doesn't qualify for inclusion in the article, I just wanted to see what you guys thought about it. 2601:645:781:2960:43B:3D61:68E3:1626 (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Media_blackout&oldid=1195008701"