Category talk:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami

Wikipedia
As an established editor on Wikipedia has removed all specific links to Wikinews from the various articles of the 2011 quake/tsunami/nuke incident, without even bothering to note their removal, and when asked, said that Wikinews articles were not worth linking to, I will no longer be adding Wikinews links to Wikipedia; it's not worth the effort, when someone else will just come along and delete them without even writing it into the edit comment that they're doing so. You may notice a drop in page accesses due to the link removal. 65.95.15.189 (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Would you mind telling us who this established editor is please? This is unacceptable behaviour from a sister project, and I will look into this issue. BarkingFish (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was w:user:Ohconfucius; personally, I think that the timeline article should atleast contain links to wikinews. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal is in direct breach of Wikipedia policy process, specifically W:WP:SISTER. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * w:User:Gold Hat  Diego Grez return fire 13:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This discussion is being linked to from the Administrator's notice board/incidents on Wikipedia.
 * It's not user Gold Hat.
 * Related discussion have occurred at
 * w:Talk:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami (centralized discussion)
 * w:Talk:International reaction to Fukushima I nuclear accidents (affected article)
 * w:Talk:Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents (affected article)
 * w:Talk:Fukushima I nuclear accidents (affected article)
 * 184.144.168.153 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Per this section, comments welcomed.
I have raised this with WP, and the responses aren't looking positive. BarkingFish (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ""None of those second-hand 'news reports' adds anything that isn't already covered by the given article or sister articles. [...] the sources cited in our articles are more extensive and up to date than those in WN" At the risk of sounding negative, he is right to some extent. One Wikipedia article covers much more than all of ours put together and is more up-to-date. Wikinews can't compete with the "encyclopedia" for comprehensiveness given its current userbase. Of course, I'd like us to be linked to, and I think the "sister project" argument is valid, but at the end of the day I think it's better to focus our efforts on this project than get involved in a dispute on another one that's not likely to go our way. In the past Wikipedians have been reluctant to allow articles on major events where they already have a very detailed piece. Tempodivalse  [talk]  15:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Our way"... Well, that's difficult for me. Here on Wikinews, it's obviously appropriate for us to want them to link back. I, however, am also a Wikipedian - and I would go against my home project there if I felt that was best. At any rate, my reading of consensus right now is in favour of the links remaining; but then, I'm involved in the dispute. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)