This page is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
No. The event has little impact beyond the daily operation of the White House, so is certainly not internationally notable. Furthermore, the source notes that "Secret Service agents found the powder during a routine inspection in an area that is accessible to tour groups", so it is likely that it was a member of the general public which bought the cocaine. Carter00000 (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Your initial reasoning for removing it was that it was a "minor event without international impact", and that's true but it's not a minor issue in the United States, for starters it led to the evacuation of the White House and it's been a political embarrassment for President Biden. I'm sure if something led to the evacuation of Downing Street or the Kremlin it would also be notable enough to be included here, whether it was harmless or not. That's why I reverted you. Again, you're citing WP:BRD as though it only applies to you, and you're removing it without censensus from the Wikipedia community to do so. You want a consensus so let's reach one before you edit war again. Tagging users who have edited the same portal. @User:Mount Patagonia @User:Gianluigi02 @User:Patrick Cristiano @User:Dubstar44 @User:Ionmars10 @User:Noel baran. Your thoughts on this story's inclusion? GWA88 (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to edit war with you over this, but since this is your second case of edit warring on the current events portal in recent times I will consider bringing this to the attention of WP:ANEW. See WP:NOCONSENSUS, "When discussions of proposals to delete articles, media, or other pages end without consensus, the normal result is the content being kept", and right now we're stuck at a 1–1 decision. What happens if we're still at 1–1 a week later? It's basically down to your opinion versus mine. GWA88 (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:NOCONSENSUS, When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.
In this case, as per WP:BRD, the bold edit is the edit where you added the entry. The "version prior to the bold edit", is the version prior to you adding the entry. Carter00000 (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as of right now you are the only editor objecting to its inclusion. I will be restoring it if a consensus on its removal is not reached. GWA88 (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In relation to the argument that the event isn't internationally notable, I think it's worth noting that the aforementioned source of this event is BBC News, a UK-based media outlet with an extensive international audience. This strongly suggests that the incident is indeed of international interest; otherwise, a globally recognized platform such as the BBC would not be covering it.
I would also like to bring up what @User:GWA88 mentioned about the possibility of including a similar event if it happened at 10 Downing Street. Indeed, I recall such an incident that was deemed significant enough for inclusion in this portal. On May 25, 2023, "police arrest a man after he crashed his car into the gates outside Downing Street in London, which houses the official residences and offices of the prime ministerRishi Sunak." Although this incident did not result in casualties nor was it necessarily a "political embarrassment" for the Prime Minister, it was included due to the disruption caused at a key government site.
This establishes a precedent for the inclusion of events that transpire at significant political locations, regardless of the precise level of physical or political harm incurred. Therefore, I posit that the recent event at the White House, which led to its evacuation, certainly meets the bar of notability set by this precedent. signed, Pattalk14:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
