Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Please submit error reports only for content that is currently or will imminently appear on the Main Page. For general discussion about the Main Page, kindly use its talk page.
National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously:
Misplaced Pages does not prefer any national variety of English.
Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
Offer a correction if possible.
References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 15:33 on 6 January 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.
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.
"It erupted into a full-scale mutiny that included 70,000 Africans from Carthage's oppressed dependent territories, bringing supplies and finance." The latter clause is a fragment. Suggest changing to "It erupted into a full-scale mutiny that included 70,000 Africans from Carthage's oppressed dependent territories, who brought supplies and finance." --Paul_012 (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My thoughts remain the same from 1yr ago: "A change from his official photo—one of him grinning—to either a neutral, pensive, or indignant shot would be projecting social norms on his supposed reaction. But he is unpredictable, so that's not worth pursuing. Moreover, a change from his official, grinning pose could be argued to be an editorial statement of guilt of someone who is perpetually self-confident. As we do have an official photo, which he presumably endorsed, it is the best choice given his situtation."—Bagumba (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
It should not matter if Trump himself approved a particular image, and his wishes on how he should be depicted are irrelevant here. A change to a petulant and an angry pose is much more likely to be interpreted as an expression of defiance than of guilt because Trump never ever admitted guilt for anything, and everybody knows it. We are not "projecting social norms on his supposed reaction". There are plenty of RS reports on what his reaction to the impeachment conviction was: angry defiance and vengefulness. A picture more reflective of that mood would be much more appropriate than a picture of him grinning. Nsk92 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The substitute picture currently displayed in the is better than the original picture of a grinning Trump. According to all sources, his reaction to the impeachment was anything but jovial, e.g. WaPo report here. I had suggested another image for consideration as well: Nsk92 (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Here's a couple more pictures below that are more recent and where it actually looks like he's not happy, if you're so inclined. Bait30 18:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
November 26, 2020
January 12, 2021
Our portfolio has expanded since the last impeachment. If we're not going with the official photo, then use a more recent one. I swapped in the 2020.—Bagumba (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
He sure looks grumpy. This might be off-putting to new readers of Misplaced Pages. Perhaps we should go with a neutral expression?--WaltCip-(talk)19:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I've swapped it out with the January 12, 2021 shot, which is the most neutral background, most recent, and most generic pose. -- Fuzheado | Talk20:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah the new photo is absolutely awful. I would normally find humor in the irony of replacing his official portrait with a cropped photo that makes him look as miserable and unflattering as possible in order to avoid "levity", when the person who made the argument proposed an even more bizarre photo of Trump weirdly smirking, and is now joking about editing the image to make Trump look more orange, but this is just an aesthetically offensive, low quality photo for the main page. I don't see anything wrong with using his official photo, indeed it would seem to be the most neutral thing to use, but literally any of the alternatives proposed here are better quality than the current one. ~Swarm~05:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I did think this odd when I saw it last night, but decided not to get involved. But since others are also saying so, I agree that we should be using the official photo, as we do in almost every other case, not swapping for some other lower-quality version just because we think he looks too happy. — Amakuru (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Swarm - Look I don't feel that strongly either way, but to call the above "overwhelming consensus" is really a poor characterization. At least portray it accurately. -- Fuzheado | Talk14:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
You've changed the words you've used to express your displeasure. But you've clearly expressed disapproval twice, at 13:38, 15 January 2021 where you used words like "absurd & ridiculous" to express it and 14:40, 15 January 2021 where you used the phrase "amusingly amateurish". That's two. --Jayron3216:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The term "incitement of insurrection" should not be wikilinked to Sedition unless there RSs can show this is the prevailing legal interpretation of the impeachment charge. Otherwise the link should be changed to Incitement. AnonQuixote (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
A few preliminary sources:
BBC: "The House of Representatives accused Mr Trump of encouraging violence with his false claims of election fraud."
Washington Post: "Thus, the House said, Trump violated the 14th Amendment by inciting violence against the government." The same article contrasts the charge against Trump with potential sedition/seditious conspiracy charges against some of the rioters.
So far I haven't found anything to support the sedition interpretation.
I have replaced it with a link just to insurrection. I didn't think incitement really needed linking, as that's a fairly standard English word and we don't want link bloat, but if others disagree we can reconsider. — Amakuru (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The phrase "seditious acts" is in the article of impeachment itself. The word sedition is defined as "incitement to rebellion." Why are we splitting hairs here? GreatCaesarsGhost13:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I have put a note about this over at WT:DYK, and that's a very good spot thank you. The two pages should certainly be merged, and perhaps have their histories merged too. In the mean time, I'm not sure we need to pull it from the main page, the new article is much longer and more comprehensive than the original, but I've asked the question anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The source states that Wang set himself and his family on fire (景崇已與家人自焚矣), on the day Guisi (癸巳) in the twelfth month (十二月) of the second year (二年) of the Qianyou (乾祐) era. A comparison with this table indicates that this fell during the reign of Emperor Yin (隱帝) of the Later Han dynasty (後漢). Inputting these details into the calendar converter produces the output 西元950年1月15日, or 15 January 950. — RAVENPVFF·talk·14:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Patrice Lumumba - ironically given the subject above, the article states (a) the complicity allegedly included Belgium, the US and the UN, so why they've been left out of the blurb I know not but (b) the assertions appear to have been made in a book which Misplaced Pages does not currently seem to consider notable. Genuine question: are these allegations main-page-worthy? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
November 26, 2020
January 12, 2021
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
YDone. – Sca (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
