Portal talk:Current events

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Current events    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This page was within the scope of WikiProject Current events, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
This page has been mentioned by a media organization:
Related pages
Important pages
Archiving the Portal
News about Wikipedia
About this Page
Suggest a Headline or Main Page In the News Item
Current Portal talk:Current events archives
Old Talk:Current events archives
15 (last archive up to: 1 Jan 2007)
Other old Talk:Current events archived discussions
Vote on tense
Setting the context
Too much analysis
Ongoing events
Original Current events GFDL
See Portal:Current events/October 2003 (history)
Recent changes


For months, there has been daily updates about Duterte on the portal. They are always myopic and often outright biased. They started before his election when there was a daily barrage of posts on the portal about how awful he is, and then after he won the election there's been daily posts about how awful his policies are (especially with respect to his drug policies). Is there some reason that this one person gets so much coverage here, especially when that coverage is so clearly NPOV and UNDUE? (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm seconding this. There seems like there is a daily Philippines news item, sometimes two. It does seem to have started with Duterte's election, although they're not always about him. But even when they're not: do we need a daily update on the Davao City bombing that happened two weeks ago? I'm not sure that it's always biased against Duterte, because there seem to be a lot of headlines on relatively minor terrorist events in the southern Philippines as well, but this is definitely undue.Konchevnik81 (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a lot of biased POV propaganda against Duterte in the news. This is the usual western propaganda stuff. Same with Trump and Putin. DerElektriker (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Too much systemic bias[edit]

It seems we are now routinely including local-interest news in Portal:Current events, but only local interest news that is of interest to North Americans and Europeans. For example:

If you've ever lived in a 3rd world country, you know that "crazy man attacks people with machete" is a weekly news staple.[1] Just because it happens in Canada doesn't suddenly make it relevant to the rest of the world. And regarding local/regional elections, there are literally thousands of these happening across the world every year. If we include Berlin's local election, why shouldn't we include all the rest of them? I've tried removing some of these stories on occasion, but I'm usually reverted. Can we please make more of an effort to only include news that is actually internationally relevant? Believe it or not, there are actually people that read this page that don't live in North America and Europe. And believe it or not, they don't really care about the price of tea in London. Kaldari (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely. As an example (taking today's news), how is more important the Gaelic and Australian football results than the three Nobel Prizes already awarded ? Pepe Ochoa (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The MSM is full of this. A lot of people think this stuff is important and post it to wikipedia.DerElektriker (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Arnold Palmer[edit]

Well-known golfer Arnold Palmer should be among the Recent Deaths on the front page. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@AlanM1: That's being discussed at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: Arnold Palmer. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

End of Colombian conflict[edit]

I am happy to report that the Colombian conflict has ended with the signing of the peace treaty between FARC and Colombian government. Please remove the conflict from ongoing conflicts. Daiyusha (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the peace treaty was voted down this past weekend. It also never covered the ELN, which is still fighting the Colombian government, so Colombia should go back on the list. Konchevnik81 (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

What's notable for Wikipedians?[edit]

It's actually pretty amazing to see Wikipedia front page celebrating a protest action from 1936 when 200 Englishmen went on a march, and absolutely no mention in the newsreel of over 100,000 participants protesting against Polish abortion bill in 2016, despite worldwide support and coverage by basically every major news portal in length (Independent, Washington Post, The Telegraph, Huffington Post, Vice, New York Times, LA Times, The Economist, BBC News, Bloomberg). Also, nothing is mentioned by Wikinews. I guess it makes clear what are the priorities of Wikipedians. --Oop (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

To be fair the Jarrow March is a featured article, but otherwise, I'd agree - it's odd that there is zero mention of the Polish protests anywhere on the news page. Konchevnik81 (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
"every major news portal" you mean biased pro western MSM?DerElektriker (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyvios[edit]

I've found a few copyvios by User:GWA88 who is an active contributor at the current events pages. A lot of his additions here are Reuters sourced. I cannot access that site where I live, so I cannot do copyvio checks. Please consider spot checking to see if any of your entries by that user are copy pasted. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


Can some sysop-type of person take a look at some recent editing at Portal:Current events/2016 October 7? Anon is deleting events that happened on that day, events were restored and they have now deleted them again. Will leave notice on their talk page but someone above my pay-grade lol will probably need to step in. Shearonink (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
are you new to current portal?, current portal is for notable events as part of an encyclopedia - events that will need to be known as part of history 20 years from now - the current portal is NOT a newspaper of daily useless events that certain biased editors place there for their own propaganda goals - specifically, news about some idiot's comment 11 years ago reformulated to be about a daily grind of useless material about a presidential campaigne is of no value to our readers and has been repeatedly ad nausium been ruled is not part of an encyclopedia - adding it is like saying we should daily be quoted everything both of these two looser idiots talk about as part of both of their stupid campaignes - at the current portal the editors have removed all this mass media biased propaganda spin cycle - there is no reason to start now and let the portal degenerate into one or the other sides favorite location for political rubbish--2600:8800:FF04:C00:90C:69BD:1C86:33F1 (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with asking an admin to take a look at the content in question. It does seem to me that a particular event which many US Republican political leaders have reacted to by repudiating Mr. Trump's language/candidacy/behavior is of just as much historical interest as the Wikileaks releasing of the Podesta/Hillary Clinton emails. Shearonink (talk)
no one cares about stupid Hillary's Podesta emails what we care about is the hack and theft and possible tampering with the US election other than that the item would fail WP:NOTABILITY and just need to be removed also--2600:8800:FF04:C00:90C:69BD:1C86:33F1 (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
as for the other and you say have an admin look at it - I just said they have repeatedly stated the current portal page IS NOT A NEWSPAPER--2600:8800:FF04:C00:90C:69BD:1C86:33F1 (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
The event is indisputably notable as a major turning point in the presidential campaign; it is quite certainly the most widely-covered and important story in American domestic politics at this point. Mentioning only the Wikileaks thing (receiving a small fraction of the coverage) while ignoring a campaign-changing revelation is not evidence of neutrality. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I would add that comments about "biased editors" and "looser idiots" (sic) are not helpful in writing an encyclopedia. Your personal opinion about the two major-party presidential candidates does not render them unimportant for our purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Dyn attack[edit]

Should this be included on the main page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs. Jan Cola (talkcontribs) 20:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mrs. Jan Cola: That's being discussed at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Cyberattacks. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)