Wikipedia:Current events noticeboard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Noticeboard created

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Current events noticeboard § Noticeboard created

Moved meta discussion to talk page. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump meets with Kim Jong-Un on North Korean

Resolved

--qedk (t 桜 c) 12:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Trump meets with Kim Jong-Un on North Korean has been created, and has been nominated at WP:ITN/C. Given that it is only a paragraph at this point, I'm tempted to move it to draft to allow expansion past the point of WP:NOTNEWS, but I figured that instead I could post here and get more eyes on it. It's unlikely that the ITN nom will succeed, but regardless the page will likely become heavily trafficked as more information is released, and it may be useful to keep a eye on in. (Hope I'm kicking this noticeboard off to a good start!) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Should be merged to Presidency of Donald Trump. Why does it need a standalone article when it barely has enough content for a stub? --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

pinging @MSN12102001, who created the page --DannyS712 (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

First report; Very exciting! This should definitely be in draftspace then eventually merged with North Korea–United States relations. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Have boldly merged to North Korea–United States relations#Trump meets with Kim Jong-Un on North Korean side of DMZ. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the hatnote. This seems like an adequate solution. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This option seems the most sensible to me. StudiesWorld (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 Delhi Temple attack

Resolved

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

2019 Delhi Temple attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An article started today about a dispute over parking that spiralled into an attack on a temple two days ago. It seems questionable as to whether this event has any long term notability, in my view. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

100% being discussed off-wiki. Cannot tell much else. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

(Sorry, clipboard failed me) There's an AFD started but mostly filled with comments from new accounts. Schazjmd (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: There's a sockpuppet investigation that can use your expertise. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: The last time I was clerking in a sockpuppet investigation about an editor who participated in RexxS' RfA (as did I), I was immediately accused of being biased and asked to recuse. Having participated in the AfD, I'm not going to touch the SPI with a 10-feet pole. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

According to the page creator, they tweeted a link to the AFD thread which would explain the influx of comments.[1] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Nizil Shah moved the page to 2019 Delhi communal clash now. Huh. :/ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It's been moved again to now be 2019 Hauz Qazi clash. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• (moved from talk page.) The article was literally made with purpose to disrupt the communal harmomy between Hindus and Muslims. This guy made this page amd tweeted that if muslims have their wiki why can't we. Which got some retweets. Then this article uses hate speech and provocative language so as anyone who read it make a perspective that muslims are violent and all that. But there was nothing like this. So I request the respected moderators to remove this article as this is just a minor tiff and nothing more than that. Edward Zigma (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Update: This was raised at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia_being_used_for_hate_propaganda and consequently there are a lot of eyes on this article and its AfD nomination: WP:Articles for deletion/2019 Hauz Qazi clash. This discussion can probably be closed now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: this board got out classed by AN/I it looks like. (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ lol –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes

More eyes on 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes would probably be useful. It was nominated at ITN/C, but is unlikely to be posted. Despite being the largest earthquake in decades, it was a sparsely populated environment and may not event meet WP:EVENT. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Another Believer just created it a few hours ago as a stub]]. AB, would you care to explain why you didn't want to delay? You're not at fault, but I am curious. It also feels like the article is moving a little too fast.^[2][3][4] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

An earthquake of that magnitude is instantly notable anyway, so it's common for articles to be created as soon as it pops up on the USGS Twitter feed. The article is at about the same quality of other earthquake articles that have passed ITNC, but I agree that the lack of real damage excludes it from being world-wide news. Similarly strong earthquakes happen all the time in deserted areas (usually off the coast) but they don't get posted based on impact. SounderBruce 23:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't feel a need to explain. I'm fine with how the article was created and expanded. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable. It's certainly comparable to other articles on similar topics. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

"Biggest/Largest in [region] since [year]"

Portal:Current events/2019 July 4 adds to the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes entry that "The earthquake is the largest in Southern California since October 1999". I think we should add to Wikipedia:How the Current events page works to generally discourage such entries. It is more of a history lesson than a report on the current event. The current event is best assessed by its own facts, such as physical magnitude and casualties in the case of earthquakes. It is also a tool for sensationalism, such as when an insignificant earthquake near Sweden was described as the "biggest earthquake for 100 years" [5], because of the fact that Sweden is a region of very few earthquakes. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I received a like for this entry anyways, so I've added an entry to the guidelines: [6]. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Karnataka

The prime minister of the Indian state of Karnataka has resigned after a no-confidence vote. That page (as well as any pages on the government) may need attention. I am not enough of an expert to contribute myself. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents in July 2019

Resolved

 – This received a number of edits since this post. I think it's fair to say that more folks are watching it now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This list is a mess.

They don't appear to be using reliable sources to ascertain what is and is not a terrorist incident. As a result quite a few involve paramilitaries and disputed pseudo-state agents engaged in civil war. While I may not be a fan of these entities, they are not unambiguous examples of terrorism. When I tried to revise the list, I was immediately accused of edit warring (I was doing nothing of the sort) and when I tried to engage at article talk, I got stonewalled.

Per the MOS entry at WP:TERRORIST and WP:RS policy in general, each entry on this list should be supported by (ideally more than one) reliable source stating, "this was a terrorist incident." Instead, even one of the best sourced examples (the kabul bombing of July 1) is depending on a news agency from Bulgaria of questionable reliability to support its inclusion as all the other refs refer to it as a bombing, but not a terrorist incident. At this point I'd rather get eyes on the page to review the multitudinous entries and multitudinous cited sources to determine:

1. Which sources in use are actually reliable.
2. Which sources in use support designating an incident as a terrorist incident.

Because the alternative is WP:TNT and I suspect that is going to lead to a WP:OSE headache as I suspect the SPAs who run this list have been making one of these every month for a long time. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Since "terrorist" is a contentious label, the placement of any entry on this list should be considered an exceptional claim needing verification of the "terrorist" label from multiple high-quality sources. — Newslinger talk 22:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Editors may be interested in Talk:List of terrorist incidents in July 2019#Criteria and event notability – Levivich 03:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

We have literally dozens of these monthly lists, most if not all with problems. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, why do we have monthly ones as opposed to yearly ones? StudiesWorld (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

StudiesWorld sorry, I've no idea. We've had them since 2015.[7]. I guess someone decided there were too many to only have one yearly list or two half-year lists. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

2019 Yuen Long violence

• Input would be appreciated at Talk:2019 Yuen Long Terrorist Attack#"Terrorist Attack"?. – Levivich 00:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Levivich: Is there a MOS:TERROR? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  I removed an unsourced claim about the number of injured. I also proposed the article be merged with 2019 Hong Kong extradition bill. I'd like that done sooner than later tbh. We might want to consider having a general hold for new articles for possible terrorist attacks. Could be implemented via edit filter. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  There is now. – Levivich 02:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 18:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Bloomberg Opinion piece regarding Twitter data sets in 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

There is a discussion on whether Adam Minter's opinion in Bloomberg Opinion piece "When It Comes to Twitter Meddling, China's No Russia" (reproduced below) is considered due weight in 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Social media.

Whatever the backstory, a brief perusal of the database reveals that the vast majority of content tweeted by these accounts wasn't related to Hong Kong and -- most important -- failed to generate retweets, likes or responses. In fact, most of the tweets in the database have no connection to the protests; some of the most popular appear to link to prurient material.

"When It Comes to Twitter Meddling, China's No Russia", Adam Minter, Bloomberg Opinion

If you're interested, please participate at WP:NPOVN § Bloomberg Opinion piece regarding Twitter data sets in 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. — Newslinger talk 22:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment of Donald Trump

• Page: Impeachment of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Filer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs)

Users may be interested in monitoring Impeachment of Donald Trump, which was just created in light of Pelosi's press conference. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The article title is currently misleading. Any one willing to close the move discussion would be appreciated. I am involved. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Closed, moved. Kingsif (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The Federalist in Trump–Ukraine controversy

There is a discussion on the Trump–Ukraine controversy article's use of The Federalist on the reliable sources noticeboard. The discussion also mentions other aspects of the article's "Whistleblower evidence rules" section. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § The Federalist (website). — Newslinger talk 21:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Feels clear-cut to me, hopefully other people will view it the same way. --qedk (t 桜 c) 05:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Individual events of 2019 Hong Kong protests

• Page: 2019 Prince Edward station attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Filer: matthew_hk (talk · contribs)
• Policy: Wikipedia:BLPCRIME (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), MOS:TERRORIST, Wikipedia:NPOV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), WP:V, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions of doubt, etc

Point of Concern

I already boldly replaced the infobox from Template:Infobox civilian attack to Template:Infobox civil conflict, as it is pointless to label which side are perpetrators, and the arrested suspect in the incident, are not perpetrators that attacks people (They were related to the protest events that deemed unlawful thus became suspects). Instead, it would even not that helpful to label the police is the perpetrators but at the same time they arrest people. Since there would be in the foreseeable future, there would be no criminal charge against the police despite media and protesters accused the wrongdoing, and the reports of Independent Police Complaints Council, to be release soon, may suggest wrongdoing but it is not a court ruling. How we should incorporate info and news report in this case?

As well as opinion and protesters played a card of passionate wording of "it look like a terrorist attack", and then even more bizarre rumour of "police had killed people in the station and hide the corpse somewhere". As a context of subsequent protest event, which merit the importance of this event that happened on 31 August, how many detail should be included (especially the wording in lede) but not turning the page into a detailed urban legend, even quite a lots of news report are discussing the existence of the killing by quoting borderline thin air?

Thanks, --Matthew hk (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Civil conflict the obvious better choice. Kingsif (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of Hong Kong Free Press

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Hong Kong Free Press, especially with regard to its reporting on the 2019 Hong Kong protests. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Is the Hong Kong Free Press a reliable source?. — Newslinger talk 11:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

List criteria at List of school shootings in the United States

Editors are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of school shootings in the United States#List criteria. Thanks. – Levivich 04:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Watching. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of RTHK

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of RTHK's reporting of November 2019 Hong Kong protests. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RTHK for List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests. — Newslinger talk 11:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Hyderabad gang rape

Resolved

AfD closed as keep. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Hyderabad gang rape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Filer: MJL (talk · contribs)
• Policy: Wikipedia:NOTNEWS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Point of Concern

This is another contentious AFD that is likely to see a lot of traffic.

Thanks, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Pervez Musharraf

• Page: Pervez Musharraf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Filer: Abishe (talk · contribs)

Point of Concern

The article is expected to face vandalism as the subject is making headlines.

Comments

The subject in consideration will be highly edited in coming days as death penalty is sentenced by the court. Thanks, --Abishe (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment of Donald Trump

As a note, Impeachment of Donald Trump just happened. Issues have already popped-up ([8]), and more eyes may be helpful. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, fun... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I already protected today:

1. Impeachment
2. List of presidential impeachments
3. Impeachment trial of Donald Trump
4. Impeachment of Donald Trump
5. United States House of Representatives

El_C 03:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2019 Sri Lankan Swiss embassy controversy

Resolved

 – Article merged. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Sri Lankan Swiss embassy controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Filer: Abishe (talk · contribs)
• Editor:
• Policy: Wikipedia:NOTNEWS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Point of Concern

This information is having tendencies to be manipulated because the subject is about the diplomatic standoff between two nations.

Thanks, --Abishe (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Little Bay Islands

Can we get an admin review of recent edits to Little Bay Islands, the community was recently resettled and the article has been dramatically re-written.--NL19931993 (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@NL19931993: Anything in particular you think may be wrong with it? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The article has been heavily rewritten to focus primarily on the resettlement instead of the whole subject matter.--NL19931993 (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Not a fun one

• Page: 2020 Baghdad International Airport attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Filer: MJL (talk · contribs)

Point of Concern

Article needs improvement. Now that I just approved it, the article is going to be highly visible.

Thanks, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

MJL, you titled this one "not a fun one". Looking at the threads on this page and in the archives, which ones were the fun ones? :-D Levivich 02:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: This is an excellent question that I have no answer to. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Death of Kobe Bryant

People following this noticeboard may be interested to know that there are currently multiple discussions ongoing at Talk:Death of Kobe Bryant regarding a merge with Kobe Bryant or a move to a different title. Surachit (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

How an article talk page could somehow have 20 seperate sections is beyond me. Either way, the discussion was closed as not merged. I also just closed a split proposal. That just leaves the rename request. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak – 5 RMs in 10 days. Levivich 02:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of OpIndia and Swarajya

There is a discussion about the reliability of OpIndia and Swarajya on the reliable sources noticeboard. The discussion refers to citations of OpIndia in 23 articles, including List of riots in India and Shaheen Bagh protests, and citations of Swarajya in 305 articles, including Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and Malala Yousafzai. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § OpIndia and Swarajya. — Newslinger talk 02:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Indian government response to Wikipedia's coverage of the 2020 Delhi riots

Sandeep Mittal, an additional director general of police of the Indian Police Service (IPS), published the following tweet on 9 March:

Dr. Sandeep Mittal, I.P.S., @smittal_ips

The @Wikipedia hosts provocative distortion of facts.
@GoI_MeitY Urgent Action:
1. FIR against @Wikipedia by @DelhiPolice .
2. List of IP addresses of anonymous editors approving content & protecting it from editing.
3. Ask ISPs to block @Wikipedia .
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Eas...

Mar 9, 2020

References

The tweet calls on the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to issue a first information report (FIR) against Wikipedia, because Mittal is unhappy with the content in the North East Delhi riots article. Mittal also plans to collect IP addresses of Wikipedia editors and ask internet service providers (ISPs) to block Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 03:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:North East Delhi riots, Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics. — Newslinger talk 04:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: thank you for alerting us to this troubling development. I have edited North East Delhi riots exclusively under my registered account, not as an IP user. Will the Indian police nonetheless be able to identify my IP address? NedFausa (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

If you have never revealed your personal identity or IP address publicly, the Indian police would most likely not be able to identify your IP address. The Wikimedia Foundation does not yet have a physical office in India as of December 2019, and it would be against the WMF's mission to disclose IP addresses in response to a government request on editorial grounds. It is highly unlikely that the Indian police has access to CheckUser on the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia enforces HTTPS, which means that the Indian government would not be able to determine what you are doing on Wikipedia, only that you are accessing Wikipedia (if you are in India).

However, this would be a good time to review Wikipedia:How to not get outed on Wikipedia (WP:OUTED) to help prevent your identity from being exposed in other ways. — Newslinger talk 04:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)​

This is ridiculous. Sandeep Mittal's ignorance is astounding. He should know that Wikipedia is not a tool for any government to promote their "official" spin on events. He is welcome to come to the talk page and propose well-sourced improvements. So far, those who are unhappy with Wikipedia's coverage do nothing more than complain, vandalize, threaten, engage in outing, and other questionable tactics. They aren't interested in improving the article based on reliable sources. If Dr Mittal wants the article changed, he can propose changes like anyone else. That's how it works. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW someone should make sure that WMF Legal is alerted. --Masem (t) 05:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Please, have a look here Sandeep Mittal left red-faced on Twitter from the Telangana Today. KartikeyaS (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  Elliott Alderson (the pseudonym of a security researcher who disclosed a vulnerability in the Aadhaar mobile app) ended up taking down his tweets about Mittal "In order to comply with the Indian laws" after Twitter informed him of a legal complaint. Apparently, this tweet and one of his tweets pictured here were claimed to violate Indian law. — Newslinger talk 06:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• WMF Legal definitely won't play ball for editors acting in good faith on keeping a high-action content issue in check. Still, definitely a concerning sign to see as one of those engaged on the talk page and OTRS. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• The IPS officer is a civil servant, not a representative of the government. While he as an amount of pull, it's not an action from the government. Now coming to maintaining privacy, to determine your IP address, the Indian government will have to request data from your ISP, for which they have to determine your ISP and go through the data for IP addresses (which is unlikely and slow, unless you have made your location public). The alternative is to ask the WMF, or somehow compromise a CheckUser, both of which are close to impossible. The easiest way to ensure privacy for IPBE and admins is to use a VPN and remove all personal information, for other editors, removing all personal information is good enough. --qedk (t 心 c) 11:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  ​Thanks for the clarification. Please feel free to revise the section name as you see fit. — Newslinger talk 11:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Our coverage of this topic area has been having issues with IRL threats and harassment made against multiple users. I can't think of what else to do besides get the WMF to issue a strong statement on protecting Indian Wikipedians. With Wikimedia India suspended, there is no country level advocacy organization for these editors currently operating with WMF support. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Required reading for Sandeep Mittal: https://www.fastcompany.com/90471667/how-wikipedia-volunteers-became-the-webs-best-weapon-against-misinformation — yes, the WMF needs to provide support to our editors in India who suffer from this unacceptable and unlawful intimidation. Freedom of expression is guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. El_C 17:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Divyesh Parikh @abhipar7

Someone sitting in Amerika edits the content here

March 10, 2020

References

Thanks to Dr. Sandeep Mittal, I.P.S., they are now zeroing in on me. This is not just about intimidating Indian editors. I am American. Or, as one particular Indian, tweeting from the Bagalkot district, would have it: Amerikan—meaning fascist &/or racist. It's unnerving to be singled out this way on worldwide social media just because I've edited a Wikipedia page. But I will not stand down. I've done nothing wrong. If you want to find a fascist, Dr. Mittal, try looking in the mirror. NedFausa (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• I hope they are reading this and get the message loud and clear: your hateful propaganda will never be successfully integrated into Wikipedia. . Thank you to all of our editors ensuring that this article remains accurate and unbiased. Praxidicae (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Sandeep Mittal, I.P.S. meet the Streisand effect—the day after you tweeted to your 45.8K followers, accusing Wikipedia of "provocative distortion of facts," pageviews of 2020 Delhi riots increased exponentially from a mere 67 to 2,335. Never underestimate the public's appetite for provocative distortion. NedFausa (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Not to take away from your sentiment, but this is because the 2020 Delhi riots article was recently moved from the former North East Delhi riots title. As an alternative example of the Streisand effect, I would have never discovered this story if it weren't for the tweet. — Newslinger talk 10:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)​

Admittedly, the pageviews tool from wmflabs.org does not delineate sources of the spike. Our name change at 05:08 10 March 2020 may, as you suggest, have driven more traffic to the page. However, bear in mind that Dr. Mittal tweeted this direct link to his 45.8K followers: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_East_Delhi_riots. Anyone who clicked it was automatically redirected to the renamed page, but his tweet remains the origin. NedFausa (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Nah, you are overrating Twitter. The page views went up because the riots are being debated in the Parliament, and they are being talked about in the news. Google hasn't crawled our changed page title yet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not certain how the pageviews are tracked for redirects or page moves, but this comparison might put things into perspective. — Newslinger talk 01:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

If I'm reading it right, your comparison shows that one day after Dr. Mittal linked to North East Delhi riots, its pageviews jumped from 23,222 to 42,449. (Recall that he tweeted the link to 45.8K followers.) By contrast, pageviews of 2020 Delhi riots increased from 67 to 2,335. Of ‭44,784‬ total pageviews, then, North East Delhi riots accounted for 95%. That doesn't prove Dr. M. caused the surge, but it seems likely he contributed to it. NedFausa (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he definitely contributed to it. I don't know how good his click-through rate is, but it's very likely that at least some of his followers followed the link from his tweet to the article. — Newslinger talk 00:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• OMG, so is someone going to arrest me for just editing the article?Souniel Yadav (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Information security and Staying anonymous

This post aims to help good faith editors wishing to protect their anonymity in the face of government intimidation for their Wikipedia editing activity. The essay "How to not get outed on Wikipedia" is a good resource, and some of this advice overlaps with that essay. Editing using Virtual Private Networks or while using a Tor browser can both be effective ways to maintain information security. Editing from IP addresses associated with these tools is usually blocked, but editors in good standing may request IP block exemption. Editors whose usernames may be connected with their personal name or off-wiki activities may want to consider creating a legitimate alternate account for security reasons. If you do so, you should alert the Arbitration Committee or the entire CheckUser team so that you do not get blocked for sock puppetry. You may also want to request the alternate account be granted confirmed or extended confirmed status so that you can continue editing through protection without disruption. Editors who have edited while logged out may request their IP address be suppressed by contacting members of the oversight team (and do so quickly, before it gets mirrored to an external copy of Wikipedia).

These tools cannot guarantee anonymity, and for those at greatest risk may not be sufficient due to device fingerprinting and browser fingerprinting. Editors who stand to be most affected by governmental and other coordinated harassment should also try to minimize the correlation between their Wikipedia activities and other activities. Web traffic is logged, and sending emails while editing Wikipedia may narrow down potential associations between your account and other accounts you use. Internet service providers are always weak links, and editing from mobile devices which use wireless networks may allow governments to identify individuals should they seize connection records (see "Smartphone surveillance techniques" on Medium). Ad services and cross site tracking also represent potential attack vectors for government agents. Blocking advertisements, requesting Do Not Track, and deleting browser cookies make following your activity across sites more difficult, and browser plugins such as Privacy Badger can help you with this. Editing from a different browser, operating system, machine or virtual machine can make identifying your on-wiki activity with off-wiki identities more difficult for bad actors.

These suggestions obviously become more difficult and inconvenient, and at a certain point provide diminishing returns. Ensuring that you have a strong password (see XKCD 936) which is only used for this site, that your username is unrelated to your name or other accounts you have online, and that your IP address is not publicly disclosed are the simplest and most effective ways to prevent off-wiki harassment. Concerned editors should evaluate the likelihood that they are targets and what attack vectors a bad actor may use to connect their wiki activity to off-wiki identities. Remember that freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, and attempts to undermine that right should be frustrated. Thank you to editors who work to uphold the second pillar of Wikipedia, and let me know if anyone needs help with anything I've mentioned above. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Issue with headline & Dates listed

• Filer: Crater13 (talk · contribs)

Point of Concern

On the March 25th section under 2020 Coronavirus Pandemic in the United States, a CNN article is cited for "The United States has its deadliest COVID-19 day to date, with 163 related deaths." If you open the article the death count is in reference to March 24, not March 25, the day it is under. The same thing has happened for March 26th as well. In the U.S the 26th Hasn't even started yet in most of the country, but the 26th is listed as being the deadliest day with a specific death count quoted.

Relevant Diffs

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]

Comments

sorry if this is long & or formatted badly.

Thanks, Crater13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crater13 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The current version of both 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States and Timeline of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States no longer have the "deadliest COVID-19 day" claim. I had trouble finding the claim in the article histories, but it appears to be gone from these articles now. — Newslinger talk 08:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd

• Page: Killing of George Floyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Page2: all of the pages at Template:George Floyd
• Filer: Levivich (talk · contribs)
• Policy: Wikipedia:BLP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Comments

We've had full and partial blocks, a couple move moratoriums, AFD, merge proposals, edit warring, crazy-long talk pages... the usual for a topic like this. More eyes would be welcome.

Thanks, --Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Also relevant would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 shootings of Oakland police officers to those who watch this board. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Divya Chouskey

Article about recently deceased individual is incorrectly named -- should be Divya Chouksey. 2604:2000:EFC0:12:7922:1B66:98F2:E6E1 (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

fixed. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

List of public statues of individuals linked to the Atlantic slave trade

This article has really been whacked about since it's creation and gone through an AfD, I was thinking, are we able to change it too a List of statues removed in the UK in the Black Lives Matter uprising? Or something like that? I am looking for some good constructive feedback. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

​Have you considered filing a move request? If you are not sure about which title would be best, a question mark can be used in place of the proposed title in the {{Requested move}} template, as described in Template:Requested move § Unspecified new name. — Newslinger talk 19:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong protests do not deserve to be continually included in "Ongoing"

There has been nothing of any note in the city for weeks now. When was the last time anyone seen any major news report pertaining to any protests or unrest in Hong kong? The last reported event was the annual Tiananmen vigil 18 days ago.

The only reason this is still even being considered is because of the bias of certain editors in keeping it on the agenda, there are tons of other protest movements of much greater magnitude never given this light of day!--86.6.171.132 (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed this should be archived for now, until more developments occur. It is a very important topic in HK, but shouldn't be given the same prominence of the George Floyd protests or events like Syrian Civil War or Yemen Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.243.98.96 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

As discussed in Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/June 2020 § (Closed) Ongoing Removal: 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, there is no consensus for removing the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests from In the news at this time. — Newslinger talk 00:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

That consensus was reached over two months ago, when the circumstances surrounding the topic were quite different. If there are still RS that state that protests are continuing, they should say. If not - then I will support the removal. Goodposts (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggested removal of blurb about Internet Explorer support ending

• Page: Portal:Current events/2020 August 18 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Filer: Dzampino (talk · contribs)
• Editor: GWA88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Point of Concern

Microsoft ending Internet Explorer support in 2021 "Microsoft announces it will be ending its support for Internet Explorer on August 17, 2021, after 25 years."

Comments

The Independent article implies that Microsoft is killing off Internet Explorer (IE) 11, but in reality it is simply ending support for Microsoft 365 apps with IE 11 as noted in Microsoft's blog post [9]. Microsoft makes it very clear there that "IE 11 isn’t going away" and so this isn't really notable as the Independent article is quite misleading and subsequently so is the aforementioned blurb.

Thanks, --Dzampino (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Dzampino, feel free to correct the entry. The page is open for anyone to edit. Keep the entry short, 1 or 2 sentences, please. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Massive American PSYOPS social media campaign on Venezuela and neighbors shut down by Facebook

https://thegrayzone.com/2020/09/06/cls-strategies-facebook-propaganda-venezuela-bolivia/

This is apparently the first time an American social media campaign has been shut down as astroturf by a major social media company.

Is there any evidence they were editing here? 2601:647:5E00:C5A0:8D53:B3C1:D158:57FC (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

No, given the contentious nature of the area, editing related to Venezuela is watched closely. Kingsif (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The Grayzone (RSP entry) was deprecated in an RfC in March. This article does not warrant any attention. — Newslinger talk 00:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Nigerian Protests (End SARS) from "Ongoing Events"

This is to bring about the question of whether or not this should be removed. page linked on the Current News page currently takes you to the End SARS protest page, and SARS was disbanded in late 2020. I think since it has been a few months afterwards this is a possible candidate for removal from this section. --Larcondos (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Memorial (society)

Memorial (society) recently appeared on the Main Page's "In the News" box, but didn't have a {{current event}} tag. I wouldn'tbe surprised if people have also failed to update it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The Russo–Ukrainian crisis and World War III speculation

• Page: World War III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Filer: LaundryPizza03 (talk · contribs)
• Editors (in order of involvement):
  • Balkanite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • LaundryPizza03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 223.25.74.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • MarioProtIV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 184.61.124.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Thegoodguyas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Mattplaysthedrums (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Στάλιν και παραλλαγή (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Dominicmgm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Anonymouswiki1232400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Theasiancowboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Vedant0407 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Policy: Wikipedia:TOOSOON (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Wikipedia:CRYSTAL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Point of Concern

Users keep re-adding the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis to the article as a potential predecessor to World War III (WW3). The user Balkanite (talk · contribs) first raised the question at Talk:World_War_III#2021-2022_Russo-Ukrainian_crisis on January 22. I told them that it would depend on reliable sources, which in hindsight was a poor communication and judgment. So, on February 12, Balkanite added an entry to the article (BKN), and was promptly reverted by MarioProtIV (talk · contribs) because Crisis hasn’t been widely referred to others as being a potential trigger of WW3 (only ones that sort of do are just fearmongering and not being serious) (MP4 I). Around the same time, an IPv4 user from Somerset County, Maine, posted a doomist remark about the Russia–Ukraine crisis in the same talk thread as before (184 I, 184 II); both were promptly removed by Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs), but not before I made a WP:CRYSTAL statement related to the responses in 184 II and MP4 I. Two semi-protected edit requests have been made to add the crisis to the article, both declined for the same reason, and in addition various users started to add the crisis unilaterally to the article (MPD/ΣΠ, AW1.2E6, TAC, V407), only to be reverted by Dominicmgm (talk · contribs) in the case of MPD/Σ and MarioProtIV in the others. Protection cannot be used satisfactorily, since the page is already semi'd and some of these users are extended-confirmed. For clarity, I am currently only seeking a resolution to this back-and-forth motion.

Relevant Diffs

1. BKN
2. MP4 I
3. 184 I
4. 184 II
5. MPD/ΣΠ
6. AW1.2E6
7. TAC
8. V407

Comments

The recent attack was what prompted me to file this CEN report, since this attack could affect the wiki-dispute. It's well past midnight here in Texas, and I have school today, so I may not make any further comments in the short term.

Thanks, --–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: What kind of resolution are you seeking? If you think the WWIII article needs edit protection, you might want to take this to WP:RPP; if you want a discussion on whether speculation of WWIII due to the invasion is warranted to be included, that would probably be better to happen at the article talkpage, or be WP:BOLD and update it yourself. But thanks for the notice, I'm sure we'll keep an eye on it. Kingsif (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Even if this is not the predecessor to wwIII, I think it should be noted somewhere the rise of ww3 memes on social media. See 1, 2. Thanks, Mattplaysthedrums (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree; considering DUE coverage, the amount of WWIII memes (fewer than I expected when I searched through the usual suspects, the internet seems to recognize the gravity today) is not great and independently notable enough to get coverage in a dense article that already abbreviates much more pertinent information for length concerns. If you have more than listicles, you could use it as a launch pad to start a Nihilistic memes article. Kingsif (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll provide why I speculated that this conflict is the possible start to World War III: This and this. These may be two sources but the majority of what has been written in these articles corroborate the severity of the situation between Russia and Ukraine. We all know that the majority of the G7+1 hold nuclear weapons, and aside from their economic influence in the world is the reason why they're considered "super-powers". These two articles, along with many that you can find if you use the keywords "russia", "ukraine", and "world war 3" in a search bar, proves that due to Russia risking this invasion for more proof of what Russia is possibly capable of towards developed nations. Essentially, the usage of Ukraine as a battleground along with other countries in the past 30 years goes to show that they're done with messing around and they really wish to cause harm to each other. I'm simply making my own observations but like many other observations, I could be wrong. I genuinely hope that this invasion does not result in World War 3, but I fear that if this continues, many will be killed for no reason other than to prove the "might of their nations". Balkanite (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Abortion-rights violence

• Category:Abortion-rights violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Anti-abortion violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jane's Revenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Discussion

At issue: how to categorize vandalism against crisis pregnancy centers, churches, and anti-abortion offices?

• How to apply parent categories to Category:Abortion-rights violence?
  • Is it "violence" if no people are injured?
  • Can it be considered Category:Violence against Christians?
  • Can it be considered Category:Violence against women?
  • Can it be considered Category:Terrorism?
• If the above shall not be applied to the main category, should any be applied to the Jane's Revenge article? What is the threshold for their applicability to articles on abortion-rights violence? Elizium23 (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 Tunisian constitutional referendum

This article about a recent major event is already falling out of date, with some sentences still referring to the topic in future tense. WikiProject Tunisia has been alerted as well, even in the lead:

Preliminary results will be announced from 26 July to 28 July and final results will be announced on 28 August 2022 after all appeals are considered.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Do we really have to place countries all the time?

Shortly after adding this edit about Trump getting sued by NY Attorney General, I was reverted twice with the explanation being that this was done because I did not mention that New York is in the United States. For me, this is nonsense and disruptive, because the idea is, which I hope I have explained well, is that if a place is sufficiently known by itself (California, New York, Canary Islands, Scotland, Kamchatka, Kaliningrad Oblast, Greenland etc.), we don't really have to mention any additional info about it because this level of detail is already good enough to recognise for an average educated reader (I'm not speaking of some Podunk or Mukhosransk).

This is not the first time reverts happen because some event happened in the United States - in my experience, this happened here and here. From the history, I also see reverts happening because something happened in Ontario (Canada - mention the country), Texas (Alex Jones convicted by jury - arguably "domestic" though surely related to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, so the news is relevant to update the article about the particularly notorious shooting), or in Amazon (the news describing union formation in the company which is known to be anti-union and which so far managed to resist the efforts to unionize).

Also of note is that, at the moment of writing, news about Hurricane Fiona reaching Turks and Caicos and Bermuda were not reverted because the country name (United Kingdom) was not added to them. I'd argue that Bermuda is known enough to be mentioned alone (the article about the Bermuda Triangle has more views than Bermuda), though Turks and Caicos are a borderline case here.

That's less of a complaint, because many other reverts were useful, but some do annoy. So please answer these questions:

1. Do we have to name countries all the time when mentioning some subnational territories (a state, province, region within a country, city, dependency...) or we should by default rely on common sense about the famousness of some places when describing the places where some events happened are mentioned? If the answer is yes, is it appropriate to revert edits simply because the country was not mentioned?
2. Are comments that "we are not an American newspaper" appropriate in comments referring to "Current events" portal edits
3. Is "Use #yearname in country X" comment appropriate to redirect for a domestic event that has relevant and extensive Wikipedia articles written about it?

Any additional comments are welcome. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

What a ridiculous discussion. Those reversions of mine (you can mention me next time, I have no problem) are made so that the user who has added it, add it back mentioning the country where it happened (as I have explained many times in Edit summary), as some editors seem to think Current Events is a North American newspaper, towns or cities in that region are mentioned as if everyone knew about it. Does it really cost so much to add "United States", "Italy", "Fiji" or "Canada"? Less than 10 seconds are wasted. Wikipedia, we must insist, is an encyclopedia. There are things that I'm surprised that I have to explain. You're mixing things up which, frankly, doesn't make it clear to me what your intentions are. It's worth saying that "Use common sense" shouldn't be an appropriate comment on Wikipedia either, right? Cheers. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Common sense is frequently the answer on Wikipedia, whether that's right or wrong. Reverting with an edit summary of "Name the country, please" is about 4 times as much work as just writing the country. Maybe just name the country if you find it unclear? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Thanks for the answer. I have two things to reply to, because, as I stress, this is more of a clarification than a complaint. I wait for others to say something.

1. We do not invent rules that do not exist (and the thing you se em to enforce isn't in the instructions). So yes, it takes much more than 10 seconds to clarify why exactly this is a problem.

2. WP:COMMON is a thing. While admittedly "just use common sense" isn't exactly the best reply, thing is, there is no rule that says "always mention countries", so by default we should use common sense. So again, instead of asking "why not write countries", we can ask "why bother to enforce a rule that does not exist".

If the concern is that too many news pieces are from US or Canada (probably because most news report on these countries in probably too much detail), you can report on news from other countries that you think are underrepresented - Spain, Thailand or Nigeria, for example - and add them to US reports for balance. I mean, if there is no evidence of collusion between editors, the fact that the end result is that we may be too much US/EU-centric doesn't mean that editors are breaking the Current events rules, it's that they collectively may be more interested in US coverage. That's not ideal but it isn't against the rules.

Finally, you can add the country name yourself it that is important for you - that's fine with me.

But first, let's hear from others. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I repeat, if I have made these removals is so that the same editor who has added the entry, improve it. Basically because there comes a point where it’s frustrating and exhausting to make the same kind of corrections (or specifications) to content added by the same editor(s). If I don't add news from Spain, Thailand or Nigeria usually is for two reasons: first, because fortunately I’ve responsibilities that occupy me much more time than in previous months. And second, because some news from Spain, Thailand or Nigeria I can consider "very domestic", so it would not be congruent to add them if, if they were from other countries, I would remove them. And that reflection, often, some users (I'm not talking about you) don't do it. _-_Alsor (talk)

The whole point is that there is no rule saying you must mention a country, so what's the point in urging that I do something about it? You like it that way? Fine, I like it the other, and I think my way serves our readers well, and so long as there is no rule, you may of course correct the text the way you like, just don't involve me into that (by reversion/deletion) without a good reason, OK? Let me do my own business. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

If we are talking about WP policy, per the WP Manual of Style (WP:PLACE), no requirement for including the country name exists for the name of locations. Furthermore, there are requirements for the country name to not appear, except for special cases, for most of the countries (ie. United States, United Kingdom, Finland, Germany, Ireland..). Carter00000 (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

"no requirement for including the country name exists for the name of locations", nor the opposite (per WP:PLACE). _-_Alsor (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it should be better understood that this is an encyclopedia and, therefore, the better the information included, the more specific it's, the better it's always. A question of quality. In this case, it's clear that we are not going to understand each other. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Noting that issues relating to Alsoriano97, including the issues presented in this discussion, was previously discussed at ANI [[10]]. Pinging Cryptic who previously undertook enforcement action against Alsoriano97. Carter00000 (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

You can also think back on how you ended up being valued after those discussions you opened and how they ended up in general. Good morning. _-_Alsor (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki Please try to understand that the world does not revolve around English-speaking countries, even on English Wikipedia. It's appropriate to name the country because there is more than one country in the world. Believe it or not, there is more than one English-speaking country in the world. There are three places called "New York" in the UK alone. There's even one in Ukraine. Turks and Caicos and Bermuda are not countries in the sense of being self-governing, but they are not part of the UK either. You are meant to be writing for everybody, so think twice before you declare that "everybody knows" what you mean. Deb (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I imagine that the four New Yorks that you mention (including one on the frontline today) are not what 99.99% of people think when we speak of New York, particularly as none of those are cities within a state (England is a country, while the New York in Ukraine belongs to an oblast). This is regardless of whether we are on en.wp or on other language WP.

Other than that, I do not say that specifying countries is never appropriate. I say that reverting because no country was mentioned is simply not appropriate. If people have doubts, they can just click the link to make sure we are speaking of the UK, US, Russia or whatever other country. I assume that articles being within level 4-vital or similar are such that the majority of WP readers should know about or at least should have heard of. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand your point, but it's never wise to assume that WP readers "should have heard of" something. People generally use encyclopedias to look up things they don't know about - so yes, context is important. I would agree that reverting something because it doesn't include the country is a little extreme, and personally I would just have added the country, but please do consider the need for context when you are writing for Wikipedia. Not everyone is as well-educated as we are. (I recall a conversation with a sales assistant in Hong Kong who, when I told her I was from Britain, replied "You speak very good English"!) Deb (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, except that some readers may ask if "New York" alone refers to New York City or New York (state) — this mention is about the latter, and that needs clarification for those who have heard of only the city. I do agree, though, that we should mention that this is in the United States for the same reason why most current events specify a country — not everyone knows where New York (state) is. In Calgary, Alberta, Canada, my dad had to explain to a friend where Texas is in the United States, and New York (state) has a similar population. Meanwhile, most Americans would be baffled by any mention of Uttar Pradesh, which makes up about 20% of the population of India. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Handling legal changes concurrent with the 2023 Israeli judicial reform

For the past few weeks Israel has been going through a socio-political turmoil, at the core of which is a so-called "judicial reform" - a set of quasi-constitutional amendments that the government is trying to pass, which will radically alter the power balance between the judiciary and the executive branches. Surrounding this "reform" is a plethora of other proposals, some of which directly depend on the "reform" passing. The whole thing is seen by many as one big "power grab", drawing sharp criticism from across the globe, and sparking waves of protest throughout the country.

So we have one subject (the "reform") contained in, and fueling another (the "power grab"); and many criticisms that address either, or both. How and where should we make the distinction?

Opinions welcome here. François Robere (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Armed conflicts and attacks

In Portal:Current events for March 10th, under the category, Armed conflicts and attacks, Israeli–Palestinian conflict the following sentence is written:

A Palestinian man is shot and killed by an Israeli settler near a farm in Karnei Shomron, in the West Bank. The sentence sights Al-Jazzera.

This sentence is very POV-pushing and misses a critical piece of information. A Palestinian was shot due to holding knives and two IEDs. The suspect allegedly hurled two IEDs, one of which exploded, before the owner of the farm shot him dead. The Rescuers Without Border emergency service said at least 10 IEDs were found in the area. This is evident in this source. This should be fixed and Al-Jazzera should never be sighted as a source anyway.

Thanks, --TippedNotion (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi TippedNotion,

The entry was amended to the following by another editor since you posted this comment:

A Palestinian man is shot dead by an Israeli settler near a farm in Karnei Shomron, in the West Bank. The Israeli military claims that the man was armed at the time.

You may further amend the entry or source if you wish to do so. Editing Portal:Current Events does not require special editing rights, and can be edited by any user. Instructions on how to edit: Wikipedia:How the Current events page works.

Carter00000 (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Requesting time-sensitive review on Draft:2023 Las Anod conflict

• Draft:2023 Las Anod conflict - Wikipedia is a current conflict with coverage in BBC News Somaliland section and The Guardian's Somalia section. Could this article be draft-reviewed in a timelier way by somebody with AfC reviewer rights in Current events project?
• There is a dead redirect named "Draft:Second Battle of Las Anod" that could be deleted.

NB: the area is not strictly Somaliland at all - it is disputed between local clans with Puntland's ideological support, and Somaliland's colonial border claim.

MathAfrique (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Current events. 22:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Please note 500+ critical hospitalisations & humanitarian alarm in @MSF_EastAfrica Twitter & United Nations Security Council.

MathAfrique (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done The 2023 Las Anod conflict article was published and will be merged with 2023 content from Las Anod article. MathAfrique (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV problems for 2023 Las Anod conflict

The article at 2023 Las Anod conflict provides an imbalanced view of the conflict:

This page is about a current conflict involving war crimes. The article now misinforms readers that the Somaliland Army is fighting Al-Shabaab group which is false per talk.

Please review talkpage and try fix the article so that it represents valid neutral sources on the conflict and follows infobox policy.

— MathAfrique (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

10 positive event in 2023

2023 2409:4085:2E06:F8EE:487F:B7C:40D1:DF59 (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're looking for information on events in 2023, a good starting point might be 2023#Events. Not all of the events listed there are positive, but there's enough detail that you'll likely be able to find what you want. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

12 first days of may not accessable

First 12 days of may non-existant. 2804:1E78:1002:5B0:54EF:C0B2:58A4:8B93 (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to Portal:Current Events, the page only shows the pages for the most recent week (7 days). Older pages are not shown directly on the front page of the portal. Carter00000 (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Toronto mayoral by-election

On June 26, the Toronto mayoral by-election is included. Is this internationally significant? I've removed it twice but it keeps being added back. -06:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC) 184.56.75.144 (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No. The election covers only a single city in a country and is thus not significant enough to be included in the portal in my view. Support removal from the portal. Carter00000 (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Toronto is a global city, and the election of its first racial minority as mayor made international headlines (New York Times, BBC, etc). That's why I added it.-- Earl Andrew - talk 15:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

No. Though Toronto is a large city, the event is only notable for a short amount of time. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Misleading heading about attacks on civilians in western Russia

Currently in the current events box for Saturday, August 26, 2023, under Armed conflicts and attacks, it lists a story about a report of attacks on civilians in western Russia in this format:

* Russian invasion of Ukraine
** Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine
*** 2022–2023 western Russia attacks
**** The governor of Belgorod Oblast says that Ukrainian shelling and usage of cluster munitions injured six civilians in Urazovo. (Al Jazeera) 

Why is a story about alleged attacks by Ukraine on Russian civilians in Russia being listed under the subheading of "Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine", which is an article exclusively about attacks by Russia on Ukrainian civilians in Ukraine? That is the opposite of what this Al Jazeera story is about, even if it's about the same war. --VolatileChemical (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CEN noticeboard

Template:CEN noticeboard has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Schierbecker (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Fallacy on Persian Gulf floods

@Stephen: As I already stated, the blurb is incorrect. Previously, the blurb stated “Flooding in the Arab Gulf states leaves at least twenty-four people dead.” Currently, the blurb states “Flooding in the Arab Gulf states leaves more than thirty people dead.” This is factually incorrect as Iran has had eight casualties thus far and is not one of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. The blurb should instead correctly state “Flooding in the Persian Gulf leaves more than thirty people dead.”, as the article states. --Bijanii (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• With the fatality in Yemen now, it could also state “Flooding in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Peninsula leaves more than thirty people dead.” The current blurb - “Flooding in the Arab Gulf states leaves more than thirty people dead.” - is still incorrect and needs to be changed. --Bijanii (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)