Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events/Archive 1

Discussions for 2020 Nashville bombing
'''If joining into the discussion, do not think about the article right now. Think about the article 48 hours from now {December 27-28} and compare it to Wikipedia policies/notability guidelines.'''


 * Wanting to begin the discussions for the article for after the "Current Event notability | protection" is gone. So after 48 hours, I have a very strong feeling that the article will have dozens of RS sources, so that part of notability isn't being questioned.  The part in question is the fact that there was only 3 injuries.  I know bombings have a higher notability due to them being bombings, but 3 injuries does push lines for a stand alone article.  In my opinion (as a person), the bombing is notable, however thinking as a Wikipedia editors, is 3 injuries {plus 0 deaths} actually notable enough for a stand alone article?  (Lead Coordinator of WikiProject of Current Events) Elijahandskip (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Having seen images of 2nd Avenue after the bombing, and it looks worse than a post-apocalyptic wasteland, I think that lends to the notability. They were not many people around, but the strength of the explosion is clear. I know MINIMUMDEATHS is a popular metric, but for sparse areas (unpopulated areas, or something like a downtown street early on Christmas morning 2020), blast strength (which should be made public soon?) could be used to measure, too. To me, it looks like it would have been a lot worse if there were people around. Kingsif (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think MINIMUMDEATHS applies due to how unusual car bombings are in the US. See for example Sterling Hall bombing with one death and 3 injuries total, and a similar amount of property damage. --~ ฅ(ↀωↀ&#61;) neko-channyan 18:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A comment for that last point with the Sterling Hall bombing was that it was at a University. Anything that happens at schools, whether a shooting, bombing, fire (Large fire), or even damage from notable storms (hurricanes and tornado events), schools always have a higher notability than a standard business.  I do see what you mean though.  Thanks for the input. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If the remains discovered are confirmed as 1 fatality, I will close this discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Some news outlets are saying it is confirmed. Going to close this discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit instructions
were updated (discussion here) — the headings that used to start with a semicolon (as in ) are now enclosed in three apostrophes (as in  ). Wakari07 (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about the lead in 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
This discussion is about the lead for the article. Originally, the lead read “On January 6, 2021, supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol at the urging of President Trump and his associates.” The new lead currently leaves the “urging of President Trump of his associates” off due to Wikipedia needing a neutral lead. The discussion is about whether to add that last part into the lead, or keep it out of the lead. Everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion, even if you are not a part of the WikiProject.


 * Leave it out due to President Trump’s message on twitter to leave peacefully. President Trump never said the words “Storm the capital”, so saying that he urged them to do it would be a lie and would be a slight “bias” on Wikipedia’s part.  Elijahandskip (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Of course, Trump didn't stormed the capitol himself. And of course he said on twitter that people should go home (BUT THE STORMING HAD ALREADY DONE THEN!). Donald Trump is the abettor of the storming. (By 5.54.43.217 {User didn’t sign})

Discussion moved here Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol

Discussion for a point on Portal:Current events/2021 February 2
So early on February 2, 2021, an ip, User talk:47.20.177.163 added a point related to Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. The point was,

“Police in Washington, D.C. announce that they have insufficient evidence to charge an unidentified United States Capitol Police officer who shot and killed a rioter during the storming of the United States Capitol. (The Hill)”

On February 3, it was removed by due to “remove - wildly disproportionate, essentially a "nothing happened" story that the source itself warns it's an ongoing investigation, and not at all clear that even if something was proven if it would even lead to charges!”

Starting a discussion to determine if this point should be added/mentioned on the Portal. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Add/Keep because it does have some relevance since an officer who did kill a rioter won’t be charged for shooting. They did determine some shots should not have been fired, but in this case, there isn’t enough evidence to convict the officer for a bad/fatal shot. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Pinging relevant/active users in the portal:, , , , &


 * Don't include / stay removed as original remover. This was a short, tiny article on a matter of extremely tiny relevance - by this standard, the Current Events portal could be filled with 1000x articles per day.  First off, this is an article about something not happening, which inherently has a higher standard - that's only worthy of being reported when it's extremely surprising (e.g. if something like prosecutors had announced that Jeffrey Epstein wasn't going to be prosecuted in 2018).  But more importantly, it's not even a confirmed article about said thing not happening!  "Authorities cautioned, however, the investigation into the incident remains ongoing and no recommendation has been made to prosecutors on whether to file charges against the unidentified officer."  In other words, this is a filler story reporting that nothing has changed and an investigation is still ongoing.  It is a non-event.    Maybe, maybe there might be a relevant mention on a final decision, but that didn't occur yet.  Finally, and I don't want to let this distract too much from the above issues, but it's a rather prejudicial phrasing - The Hill is a bit of a right-leaning outlet, and the inherent assumption in this headline is that this officer would be charged normally, and it's surprising that they aren't.  But this is crazy; anybody who paid the slightest bit of attention to the BLM protests back in the day knows that even when a police officer shooting is unjustified, it is very difficult to charge, let alone convict, them.  I don't bring this up to suggest that Wikipedia adopt a left-wing approach to the news, but merely to point out that the old blurb was right-slanted, akin to "Authorities announce they won't prosecute George Soros for funding antifa riots" or the like.  SnowFire (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To go into this a bit more - there's an old saw to "ignore the headlines" which are written by different people than the article author. There wasn't even any "announcement" like a press conference, just some reporter asking questions if you read the actual article - that police say that there isn't anything to report yet, as well as that any conclusion would be premature.  The article itself is fine but the headline is massively misleading.  It's not even clear that The Hill did any original reporting here and might have just repacked the NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/01/us/politics/ashli-babbitt-police-investigation.html, which has a more reasonable headline of "Inquiry Has Not Found Evidence to Charge Officer in Rioter's Death at Capitol".  If for some reason a blurb based on this story was restored, the actually accurate blurb would be something like "An investigation into the death of Ashli Babbitt is ongoing."  Which, when phrased like that, shows exactly how relevant this news item was - not very. SnowFire (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)