This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofjournalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofMedia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
I think leaving as is won't work. There's really no reason to have 100+ examples. For a reader to understand the concept, the two or three best examples would do. A single instance of something being called a media circus probably shouldn't be enough for inclusion. It probably should be limited to events where people are actuallydiscussing the fact it's a media circus, not simply calling it one. So that would meanList of media circuses I guess, rather than list of events described as?Valereee (talk)10:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a list or cat would be good, and I very much like this suggestion for events mentioned on this page "It probably should be limited to events where people are actuallydiscussing the fact it's a media circus" - that's a good and usable criterion.Greglocock (talk)03:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think categories have to be for an immutable characteristic of the subject? I've no expertise with categories, I just accept whatever the experts tell me. :D
I'm thinking for now, maybe we go through and remove any entries that are cited to sources that just call it a media circus without discussing it in any depth? Maybe start with the US, since that's the one with the most bloat?Valereee (talk)16:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed several items from the Philippines because there are no presentable criteria for them to be considered media circuses or spectacles nor do some of the sources cited acknowledge them as such. However,49.145.14.39https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.145.14.39 has been recklessly piling them back without providing a decent edit summary as to why or providing any argument or info that could justify them being called a media circus, raising suspicions ofWP:OR.Borgenland (talk)05:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borgenland: Related to your message as i agree with it, i had observed some problematic matters on the entries made by an IP/non-WP editor. To enumerate some, if i couldn't mention all:
WP:RECENTISM – seems like repository of recent events, especially those developing stories covered by media from time-to-time; as if the editor assumes that's MC as it's widely reported NOW. (Uncertain if the coverage either ends thereafter or lasts for months.)
Controversies in entertainment and sports, in particular, those occurred in events (i.e. coronation in pageants and brawl in a sporting event) as well as family conflicts & parties. These are short term unlike that of1994 Manila Film Festival scandal. (I doubt, that editor had been or would add reports on mere allegations even if these aren't proven and don't last for long; in contrast withWP:NOTGOSSIP.)
I also doubt why a disaster i.e.an oil spill was included in the list while the effects and the aftermath are normally being reported.
And the recent death ofa media personality as additional entry? (Really?) I thought that's also normal for a media network.
In general, i may conclude that this editor doesn't fully understand the article, as insists "updates" and "additions" without any solid reason why these should be in the list.
Meanwhile, i recently added some of the entries there (those might be known at least) with definition of MC as the basis, including elements ofsensationalism. I have to consider if these are suitable for the list. (Anyone is free to accept or reject any edit/s.) In addition, i would like to sharethis piece from theCenter for Media Freedom and Responsibility, stating that as perEthics Manual, hostage-taking situation, massacres, fatal bombings, and the like are "inherently sensational, but need to be reported;" hence i assume that while all MCs are sensational, not all sensational are MCs.
The criteria are straightforward. Firstly the event itself must be notable. Secondly a reliable source must mention that there is a media circus around it. Ideally, you would also have a source discussing the event and media circuses. The first 2 are non negotiable.Greglocock (talk)07:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem we have with49.145.14.39 is that their sources provide no hint of it being a circus. Some of their entries don't even have a standalone entry. What it worse is that they refuse to participate in discussions regarding the topic even though I had called them directly on their talk page and warned of sanctions.Borgenland (talk)08:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
is it possible to add theBalloon boy hoax? I remember this was not only a media circus in the USA but a the whole world, at least in my country a few news broadcasters were relaying the live transmisions from the USA about the incident. I thought it would fit the criteriaOsw719 (talk)21:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s already a Wikipedia article on Fatal traffic accident of the Neville-Lake children and their grandfather (2015)that could be added to this page in the Canadian section. I don’t know how to add it or if I’m even allowed to. Here it is:
