Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 08:49 on 21 July 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems because this is not a talk page. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors with In the news

• There is no Syrian Democratic Forces fighter pictured in this section, as the featured picture is now Robert Mueller. Davidsousa1 (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I noticed this just now and fixed it, but thanks for bringing it up! Espresso Addict (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• It's a matter of contention whether the Special Investigation concluded that there was no collusion or whether this conclusion was made by Attorney General Barr's summary of the report. It's something that people have begun debating, so as it stands, the current blurb paints a misleading picture of the ongoing political debate. It's not NPOV. 183.83.159.136 (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Separately, the use of Mueller's name and picture adds to this misleading impression, since we have not yet gotten any of his conclusions directly. 183.83.159.136 (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• The blurb on the Mueller Report is inaccurate and needs to be changed - the Mueller Report did not reach a conclusion on whether there was sufficient evidence that Trump obstructed justice. The report left that decision to the Attorney General. The Attorney General's letter is explicit on this point:[1]

The Special Counsel’s report states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime... Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Our article on the Special Counsel investigation, which is the bolded link in the blurb, reflects this (citing a range of reliable sources):

On the question of obstruction of justice, Barr said no conclusion was reached, saying that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him". Barr goes on to say the report identified "no actions that, in [his and Rosenstein's] judgement, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent".

The blurb needs to be altered immediately to correct this inaccuracy. We can't keep misleading our readers on the Main Page about a major global news story. Neljack (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed This point of contention seems to be accurate. The text of Barr's report does not appear to assert any finding of "insufficient evidence" (regarding obstruction) by the report itself, but only that "the Special Counsel ... determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment ... therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other ... Instead ... sets out evidence on both sides ... and leaves unresolved ... difficult issues of law and fact ... Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence [is not sufficient] ..." In other words, Barr says the report laid out the evidence without drawing a conclusion and that the he made the call that the evidence was insufficient. ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This can perhaps be restated in some way along the lines of: "Attorney General William Barr decides that there is insufficient evidence of obstruction" ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like a good way to state it. Can you adjust the blurb to use your quote? Ithinkicahn (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

Please report any such problems or suggestions for improvement at the General discussion section of Talk:Main Page.