Portal:Current events—more specifically, the portal's complex framework—is fully protected, and has been since August 2010, prior to which it was semi-protected. Changes to this page can only be made by administrators. To request a change be made to the portal, please use {{edit protected}} followed by your request to bring it to the attention of an administrator. Please update a day's current events by clicking on "Edit" in the header for that day.
This page is laid out and designed as part of a set of pages. To discuss the set as a whole, see Wikipedia talk:Contents. For more information on Wikipedia's contents system as a whole, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents.
This portal does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This page is a portal. Portals are within the scope of WikiProject Portals, a collaborative effort to improve portals 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.PortalsWikipedia:WikiProject PortalsTemplate:WikiProject PortalsPortals
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
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
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics 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.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
Cleanup : * Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) * Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. * Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required.
* Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show."
Portal:Current events is a reader-facing page intended for viewing by non-editors. Please prioritize their needs when adjusting its design, and move editor-facing elements to other pages.
A majority of queries I see here are about adding entries to today's Current Events portal, so should the talk page disclaimer here directing people to today's template be made more prominent? Departure– (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for discussion of Portal:Current events, which is fully protected. If an edit is required, please make a request and add the template {{editprotected}}. An administrator will attend to your request shortly
Anybody may edit the subpages for each day, including today's
If you have noticed an error in the "Topics in the news" section, please report it here
To suggest an item for "In the news", please go to WP:ITN/C
The edit notice is shown prominently above the editor when a user clicks on "Add topic" at the top.
As for the talk page header, I wouldn't mind switching the order to put the links for non-admins first. From:
For today, if all four ballots in the papal conclave fail to elect a Pope, should that be two entries (morning ballots and afternoon ballots) or just one entry? Gaismagorm(talk)10:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Myself and Crwd-ppu are in disagreement over the inclusion of certain content on the portal.
Should we include an unsubstantiated accusation made by Trump on social media accusing China of violating the agreement over tariff roll-backs? [1]
U.S. President Donald Trump accuses China of violating the temporal suspension of tariffs accorded two weeks ago, while China accuses Trump of discriminatory restrictions against the country. (BBC News)
I removed the edits on the basis of lack of notability, as they were just accusations and were based on unsubstantiated social media posts made by Trump, which is a common occurrence. However, Crwd-ppu has insisted on its inclusion.
I now seek input from other editors on whether this news is notable enough for inclusion on the portal. XYZ1233212 (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging editors who have edited the portal on more than one day over the past five days for their opinion.
I personally won't be bothered which way or the other about whether this stays or is cut but I think trump's comment could evolve into something bigger and more notable like an actual investigation or some short of action being taken partly because of his comments but the CCP's response is the same response China and many other governments have levied against trump, that he acts discriminatory where in this isnt any more notable than the numerous other cases of this happening. AssanEcho (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This Washington Post article [2] links the post to the U.S. halting shipments of semiconductor software and chemicals, and aviation supplies to China. This Reuters article [3] discusses the post within the context of a possible call between the U.S. and Chinese Presidents while another one (also from Reuters) [4] discusses it within the context of a letter automakers sent to the Trump administration warning of closures and disruptions. Crwd-ppu (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it's notable, like others have said, Trump says things all the time. Media has a Trump-bias because he is an inflammatory and controversial figure internationally. Their coverage does not mean it is actually notable, nor are there any direct linkage between his comments and any economical or tariff-related actions.
I also don't see any of the articles Crwd-ppu has linked as being related to this specific social media post that Trump put out at all. Dmhll (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favour of posting genrally understood claims that are notable - as opposed to some Wikipedians arguing against including claims in the current events, only substantial events. IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Trump takes a verifiable admin action, that should be alright for inclusion. But Trump is not a realiable source for anything and his claims if disputed should only be included if someone has fact checked their truthiness. So whenever a dispute arises from his statements, the default a priori is disclusion. Gotitbro (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't the same thing as veracity. We can think that Trump was lying about the stuff he wrote, but that is irrelevant to the point that what he wrote (his post on Truth Social) was widely and prominently reported by all of the major news outlets you can think of. Reuters, Washington Post, BBC, New York Times, Associated Press, CNN, Fox, Guardian, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times - you name it, they covered it. When you combine that with the fact that we routinely let news with far less importance and far less coverage on the portal to stand, it is clear that Trump's post satisfies the requirements for inclusion. Crwd-ppu (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but in this case his post didn't get routine coverage [5] - this wasn't run-of-the-mill stuff that got buried at the bottom of the website, this was full-length, in-depth articles that got "front page" coverage across multiple news agencies. Crwd-ppu (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This Washington Post article [6] links the post to the U.S. halting shipments of semiconductor software and chemicals, and aviation supplies to China. This Reuters article [7] discusses the post within the context of a possible call between the U.S. and Chinese Presidents while another one (also from Reuters) [8] discusses it within the context of a letter automakers sent to the Trump administration warning of closures and disruptions. Crwd-ppu (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be confusion as to what this news event was about and that appears to be affecting how its notability is being perceived by some of the participants here. Part of the reason why that's happening seems to be due to what is in the original complaint and how it has been written which both omitted important facts. The news reports make it clear it wasn't just Trump's post that made the news, it was also the follow-up comment from his trade representative (about rare-earth exports) which they not only said gave more clarity to Trump's post, but also drew an even more direct connection to in their reporting on developments following his post. [9], [10], [11], [12] This is what I tried to get across in my version of the news item [13] but unfortunately there was edit warring over it which has resulted in its exclusion from the portal page. However, given the deficiencies of the current version of the news item that we are being asked to evaluate which makes no mention of Trump's trade representative and fixates only on his post, I'd suggest editors use the version I wrote as a better baseline to go off on instead for determining the notability of this event: U.S. president Donald Trump accuses China of violating a deal to suspend the suspension of tariffs on a Truth Social post. Trump does not provide details, but U.S. Trade RepresentativeJamieson Greer later clarifies that although China has suspended its tariffs, it still has not been removing non-tariff barriers it had imposed in response to the administration's initial tariffs as agreed to under the deal. (BBC News)Crwd-ppu (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, further statements from a government member would be similarly unremarkable, as Trump's government is largely composed of individuals who lack any independence from him. A common sequence of events involves Trump making an unsubstantiated statement, and a member of his government later walking it back with a vague or minor reason, which is similarly unsubstantiated. Due to this, I still favour exclusion of the event.
I also want to clarify that the wording you have proposed was originally proposed by myself here [14]. You later expanded it, which did not add any meaningful content in my opinion. After I reverted you, you insisted on using the current version of the entry [15]
I've added my proposed version of the entry below. Differences between the versions can be viewed here [16].
This news event doesn't fit the normal pattern. Not only did Trump's trade representative not walk back Trump's post, he doubled down on it in such a way that the media connected his comments to developments which were notable in their own right. That's the point and any suggestions to the contrary is simply denying reality. Crwd-ppu (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
