Wikipedia talk:Current events noticeboard

Noticeboard created
Well, it's finally here.

I'm still working out all the kinks, but I suppose this is the barebones structure for what the noticeboard should look like. There's only consensus for this to be up for a year, so I suppose that starts now. Feedback will be requested tomorrow. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've now linked it so it can be found. What is supposed to happen after a year? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Another RFC I imagine otherwise it should get marked historical. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good luck and hopefully this will be popular enough to be still kicking next year. HawkAussie (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, really, it shouldn't be popular at all... ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This noticeboard should ideally be used by ITN and related areas, but I find no way to get from there to here. -- qedk ( t  桜  c ) 15:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * [Thank you for the ping] I just made a few edits to some relevant pages. I can't edit Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:In the news, though. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What does PCEN mean? And why cannot we use CEN (I know WP:CEN is taken but the templates, etc.)? -- qedk ( t  桜  c ) 18:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Portal:Current events/Noticeboard. It was the best I could do and that still slightly made sense. :/ &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As for the editnotice, ✅ -- qedk ( t  桜  c ) 18:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think PCEN is intuitively incorrect, you should open an RfD to retarget WP:CEN and align the templates in order. -- qedk ( t  桜  c ) 18:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @: I certainly considered that, but I figured it'd be too disruptive for me to do it on my own accord. However, since you are now suggesting it, I will! { &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ and pinged you there. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * good luck ___CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk   18:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice (watchlisted), — Paleo Neonate  – 19:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see this noticeboard, and I hope other editors find this useful. —  Newslinger  talk   01:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the TP noti. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  03:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for creating this. Pyxis Solitary   yak  09:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * this particular discussion is not about current events. Should it be moved to the |talk page? —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When I started this thread, we didn't have a talk page. I've moved it per this comment now, though. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Do we allow articles which are made with the intention to fuel hatred between communities?
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) Edward Zigma (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

And I apologise if it seem like vandalising. The content was soo hateful, and provocative. Like violent muslims, chanting slogans, 200 muslims throwing stones. I was removing but the writer made a tweet that he need people and all those were adding more and more hateful content. And another request can we please put OPindia and SwarajyaMag in the black list? You can check these sites yourself how these are spreading propaganda against muslims.

In short, I have no problem with the article even if itd just a normal daily news. But the writer must not use any communal slurs against muslims or any religion. The writer must use proper citation. Not OPindia amd SwarajyaMag as you cam see for yourself how they spread venom against muslims. And again thanks to the moderators for letting me to give me view. Edward Zigma (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

And I apologise if it seem like vandalising. The content was soo hateful, and provocative. Like violent muslims, chanting slogans, 200 muslims throwing stones. I was removing but the writer made a tweet that he need people and all those were adding more and more hateful content. And another request can we please put OPindia and SwarajyaMag in the black list? You can check these sites yourself how these are spreading propaganda against muslims.

In short, I have no problem with the article even if it is just a normal daily news. But the writer must not use any communal slurs against muslims or any religion. The writer must use proper citation. Not right wing hate spreading anti muslim websites as you can see for yourself how they spread venom against muslims. And again thanks to the moderators for letting me to give me view. Edward Zigma (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Edward Zigma (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: AP2 noticeboard
There is a discussion which relates to this noticeboard happening here. Please feel free to weigh in there. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Article "Hollywood_blacklist"
Good Morning,

This is my first time using Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an excellent resource, which is always my first go-to in studying any topic (recently the Tuskegee experiments). Wikipedia always contains a mine of information, is unbiassed (even on topics like Shi'ia-Sunni or Global Warming), and, most importantly, contains an extensive reference section. I once had a professor who banned the listing of Wikipedia as a source. I strongly disagree.

That being said, I do want to express one concern: your article "Hollywood_blacklist" is an eye-opening primer on this topic. But in the early stages I became somewhat confused. It seems that, even before one begins reading, he/she is constantly invited to click on a series of links, all looking innocuous, but quickly take the reader to pages which do not deal at all with the infamous "Red Scare" witch-hunts of the 1950s. Instead you are treated to a lot of information (read "advertisement") about some current film of the same name.

My (serious) concern is that this practice Will take Wikipedia down a dangerous and slippery slope.

Thank you,

74.78.48.111 (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)James Standerfer

Portal:Current events potential move to WP:Current events
This discussion is of potential interest to watchers of this noticeboard. Cheers, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for the update on this, . --Sm8900 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

New task force
Hi. We have set up a task force at WikiProject_History, to cover contemporary events and history. anyone here is welcome to come over and join. just to be clear, we don't have high levels of activity at that page, but if we can be a resource or useful to anyone here, you are welcome to come by any time. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Related RFC
Sharing this: Village pump (proposals) &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Mark as historical?
As the original RfC was for this noticeboard to run for a year, and because it hasn't exactly taken hold, I suggest we mark this noticeboard as historical remove it from the Noticeboard template. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * After a week with no objection or comment I have gone ahead and marked it as historical and removed it from the noticeboard template. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's for the best. While this institution didn't end up being the solution to the systematic issues of current events, I certainly hope this failure doesn't discourage  others from trying to combat those types of problems in the future. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth trying out ideas. This one didn't work but that doesn't make its premise (there are a lot of issues surrounding in the news items both conduct and behavior) wrong. It just means that this didn't help us in better addressing them and we only know that because we tried it out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I see you've reverted the marking as historical. My thinking is that while there has been a recent conversation here, there have been more than one conversation at other noticeboards. Further this noticeboard only has 76 watchers and 391 views in the last 30 days. ANI gets about that many views in 3 hours. AN gets about 5 times that on a daily basis and RSN more than two times that on a daily basis. Editors are choosing to go to other places and the few editors that come here would, in my opinion, also be better off going to those other places. What's your thinking for keeping this open? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, there was a discussion opened and multiple replies given in the last week. It's still active and serves a distinct purpose: it's not ANI at all! Editors are using it, maybe not as much as other noticeboards, but that doesn't even really matter. Three posts in a week is many more than some active Wikiprojects get, and anything being used isn't historical by definition, right? I didn't reply here because I really didn't think it was being seriously considered, just a courtesy post because it had been a year. Kingsif (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , except this isn't a WikiProject. As a Wikiproject I would agree that its activity level is just fine. Maybe it should be turned into that rather than a centralized noticeboard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Presidental Dog Death
Hello! I think that it may be disrespectful and US-centric to have the dog of the president's death be listed next to the deaths of humans? I highly doubt this animals death was very important to most people outside of the US, and also Champ was a dog. Maybe this is precedented. SranbledEggsies (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Any living organism that has a WP article can be included in RD; dogs, trees, biomes. Lots of horses, so many horses get an RD mention. This is a longstanding principle. And death knows no region, so how is it US-centric but the posting of American people in RD is not? It's not a blurb. Kingsif (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)