Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors: Difference between revisions

Wikimedia project page for Main Page error reporting

Please submit error reports only for content that is currently or will imminently appear on the Main Page. For general discussions regarding the Main Page, use its talk page.

To report an error in content currently or imminently to appear on Main Page, use the appropriate section below. Reports should contain:

• Where is the error? An exact quotation using {{!xt}} of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible using {{xt}}.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 11:11 on 18 November 2025) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems because this is not a talk page. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Actual errors only. Failures of subjective criteria such as taste are not errors.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone’s goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

 Question: Question for the native speakers: “High Court of Justice in England” or “in London”? ArionStar (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I picked London because (a) everyone knows where that is, and (b) because it’s the High Court of Justice for England and Wales. And because concision is our friend, I went with London. Had I gone with England, I’m dead sure somebody would have reported here that I omitted Wales. Schwede66 02:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds sensible to me. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Former prime minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina (pictured) is
found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death in absentia.”

• Sheikh Hasina: minor point, but the current hook, “Former prime minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina is found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death in absentia” makes it sound like she will be executed in absentia. While that’s clearly absurd, it would still be better to phrase it so that it’s clear the hearing was in absentia. Suggest instead something like “Former prime minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina is found guilty in absentia of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death”  — Amakuru (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amakuru, it looks like me and you posted at around the same time. See my comment above. I think this needs to be pulled. TarnishedPath^talk 22:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not for us to judge the fairness of the trial or verdict. That’s for readers to decide. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is for us to judge when the UN and Human Rights Watch have made serious allegations. The verdict in that context comes accross as a political action by those who ousted a previous leader. Us presenting a finding of guilt as fact ignores that. The article itself attempts to muddy the waters about who found her guilty stating “Hasina and Kamal were convicted on 17 November 2025 of crimes against humanity by the International Crimes Tribunal-I and sentenced to death” without indicating that it is only a Bangladeshi body that found her guilty and not any sort of international criminal tribunal. TarnishedPath^talk 23:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know enough about the issues at hand to make a substantive comment on them, but I might gently note that WP:BLPCRIME says nothing about contextualizing verdicts. Did you mean to cite a different part of BLP? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The ed17, you’re correct. Given that BLPCRIME has no wording on whether particular courts are legitimate or not (it probably should have something). However looking at WP:BLP more broadly:

Biographies of living persons (“BLPs”) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject’s privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia’s job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people’s lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. TarnishedPath^talk 23:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If international bodies criticize the trial, that can be included in the blurb, but that doesn’t negate the fact that this occurred. Heads of government are rarely convicted of crimes against humanity even in rigged trials. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has been raised as a potential WP:BLPCRIME issue, I have  Pulled this for now, under the principle that it’s better to not include uncertain BLP material than to include it. However, I do largely agree with 331dot – it has been widely reported across the media that she has been convicted and sentenced to death, for example here, and I don’t think we’re breaking any laws or violating our own policy by posting that same story here on our front page. That she has been convicted in the court is a fact, it is fine for Wikipedia to report that, and it should be done concisely and without editorialising, just as we would if this happened elsewhere in the world. Readers can get all the extra nuance and information they need by clicking through to the article, which explains the standing of the court and international reactions etc. I would support reinstating the hook, if we can get a consensus here that there isn’t a violation.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She’s a former head of government and international bodies have criticed the court period. There’s no need to find criticism of the trial when the whole court has been criticised for lacking fairness and due process, i.e it is a kangaroo court. TarnishedPath^talk 23:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump said his criminal trial was rigged. Criminals usually disagree with their trials. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump is demonstrably full of shit. The US legal system hasn’t been criticised for lacking procedural fairness and due process. He appealed the trial verdict and his arguments were found lacking. TarnishedPath^talk 23:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but something like 30 percent of the US population believes him. In any event, the point is that her and her party calling it unfair means little. Maybe international bodies doing so. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

30 percent of the US population believe that Hillary was sacrificing children in the bottom of a pizza restuarant. TarnishedPath^talk 23:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“The US legal system hasn’t been criticised for lacking procedural fairness and due process” – erm, how about “Court processes are often unfair, coercive, and overly punitive” and “This ruling is unconscionable and flies in the face of human rights and the rule of law” – while the US may have greater human rights than Bangladesh, we don’t need to pretend everything is rosy just because it’s a western country. And like I said above, I don’t think the criticisms are as strong as you imply they are. The “kangaroo court” claims are mainly by Hasina herself and her supporters.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To be clear though, I would not support any attempt to “contextualise” this blurb, I’d prefer it remain pulled than go down that rabbit hole. While there has been some criticism of the sentencing to death, from what I can gather, human rights organisations generally state that Hasina’s rule was itself marred by human rights violations so presumably they don’t object to the general principle of her being held to account. Either way, this is not something we should even remotely attempt to describe in a hook. Just say what happened and move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose this pull

She was found guilty in a court of her country. The hook says what happened. This is not a BLPCRIME issue. This is a pretty clear unnecessary pull. Happy to have the name of the court included, but pulling it entirely is not appropriate or a good faith usage of BLPCRIME. I understand you disagree. But it was heavily supported by other editors.Basetornado (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pull per 331dot. There is nothing wrong with the neutral statement that Hasina was convicted. It is adding bias to state that the verdict was controversial, etc. Natg 19 (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the Sheikh Hasina matter should be pulled and stay that way. It seems apparent that the verdict is not accepted internationally as India is not extraditing Hasina to be hung. Their position seems to be that this is a political verdict not an impartial international tribunal. And it’s not just a BLP matter, it’s also contentious per WP:CT/SA and so we should “err on the side of caution“. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt it will stay pulled for very long. We’re approaching a consensus here that stating the facts about the conviction, which are also stated in all the main world media outlets, is not a BLPCRIME violation.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve stated over on the ITN page, that if the blurb does come back it needs to be contextualised that a Bangladeshi court has made this finding and the first para of the article needs correcting for the same. At present the first para of the lead, in the article, would lead any reasonable reader to believe that this is a finding of an international body, which is far from the case. TarnishedPath^talk 23:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, we should not be “contextualising” anything. There was broad consensus at ITN/C for the hook that was pulled, and as has been explained many times now, it states the facts about this conviction as they are stated in reliable sources. I pulled it out of caution, but it’s clear now that the community remains happy with the hook and that it is compliant with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amakuru Not from a contextualizing angle, but as a reader – specifying that she was convicted by a Bangladesh court is useful, for much the same reason that learning Dominic Ongwen was convicted by the ICC or Yoshihide Hayashi was convicted by the Phillipines – I can’t assume that just because somebody was convicted of crimes against humanity, it means they were convicted in their own country. If I’m reading @TarnishedPath correctly, that change would also satisfy his concerns? As for the trial being out of process or held in a “kangaroo court” with a history of being condemned by human rights observers – that is completely unrelated to the trial being fair in the casual sense of the word. The trial and execution of Nicolae and Elena Ceaușescu, for an example I can use without running into BLP violations – nobody pretended that trial was anything but predetermined, but I think you’d have a hard time finding somebody who cared. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 00:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @GreenLipstickLesbian, your correct that would satisfy my concerns. However, if consensus is against me I’m not going to keep going on about it. TarnishedPath^talk 03:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted internationally does not matter whether ITN should post a conviction or not. We’ve posted international indictments of Putin(?) and leaders in Israel and Hamas, which were not accepted by those countries. Natg 19 (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reinstated. Per broad consensus here, on top of the original consensus at WP:ITN/C (a discussion already took into account the concerns raised by Andrew above) I’ve reverted my earlier pull and reinstated the hook. However, per the sensible observation by GreenLipstickLesbian, the simple addition that it was by a Bangladeshi court doesn’t really harm the neutrality and may assuage some of the concerns raised by TarnishedPath. I’ve also made the nationality of the court clear in the article lead. My pull-and-then-repost action has effectively resulted in the status quo being restored, so if for any reason there’s later a consensus that a further pull is required, that would be a fresh action and not subject to WP:WHEEL concerns.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Better: “A Bangladeshi court convicts former prime minister Sheikh Hasina to death sentence in absentia for crimes against humanity.” ArionStar (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. I’m not sure “convict to death sentence” is good grammar, plus the point above about it being the conviction that was in absentia and not the death sentence. The blurb broadly follows the agreed pattern module a couple of tweaks. Oh, and in ansentia is an English term in the dictionary, so per MOS:FOREIGNITALICS it does not require italics.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Bangladesh(i) is mentioned twice. ArionStar (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  “A Bangladeshi court sentences former prime minister Sheikh Hasina to death sentence in absentia for crimes against humanity.” ArionStar (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s fine, it shows that she is both the former prime minister of Bangladesh, and that the court was Bangladeshi. It’s fine to have both. What you have suggested however is not correct grammar.Basetornado (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with reinstating the hook and changing the blurb to say “a Bangladeshi court”. Schwede66 03:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amakuru that mostly addresses my concerns. Thankyou. TarnishedPath^talk 03:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• So, the current blurb is now:

Sheikh Hasina

• This seems a bit better but the phrase “crimes against humanity” still seems to be partisan propaganda. As I understand it, much of her family and party has been killed by assassination and political violence over the years while she herself has been jailed, exiled and subject to repeated attempted assassinations. Bangladesh is obviously a Game of Thrones type of place in which violence is part of politics and the government of the day routinely uses it to maintain order because they have to. Framing her as especially villainous does not seem NPOV in this context. No-one seems to expect that the sentence will actually be carried out and so it’s a performance – just part of the political purge of the Awami League by its political opponents. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, we go by what the sources say, not on your deeper analysis of the situation. The Guardian article on the conviction says almost exactly what we say, in its opening paragraph. That she was convicted of crimes against humanity is a factual statement, whether you think those charges justified or not. I dare say there may be some truth in your analysis of Bangladeshi politics, but the verdict still took place and it doesn’t seem like human rights groups are even particularly in disagreement over it, other than their opposition on principle to the death penalty…  — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor points: 1. Since it is specifically the person that follows prime minister as the title, that should be capitalzied and 2. “in absentia” should have a comma around it.Psephguru (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was in the midst of commenting the same thing about the capitalisation of the title.Basetornado (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Per MOS:JOBTITLES, since it is modified by “former”, it is not capitalized. —Bagumba (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susan B Anthony was not a suffragette — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-34520-36 (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(November 21)

(November 24)

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without “protected” in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

Please report any such problems or suggestions for improvement at the General discussion section of Talk:Main Page.