Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS. Archives of past nominations can be found here.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

A blurb is a one sentence summary of the news story. An alternate suggestion for the blurb is called an altblurb, and any more suggestions get labelled alt1, alt2, etc. A blurb needs at least one target article, highlighted in bold; reviewers check the quality of that article and whether it is updated, and whether reliable sources demonstrate the significance of the event. Other articles can also be linked. The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time. RD stands for the "recent deaths" line, and can include any living thing whose death was recently announced. In some cases, recent deaths may need additional explanation as provided by a blurb; this is decided by consensus.

Cale Makar
Cale Makar

How to nominate an item

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated).
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do not...

  1. add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  2. oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive.
  3. accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  4. comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page.

Please be encouraged to...

  1. pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. Maybe the previous reviewer has missed a problem, or an identified problem has now been fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes may also help administrators identify items that are ready for promotion to the ITN template on MainPage.
  3. point out problematic areas in the nominated article and, if appropriate, suggest how to fix them. If you know exactly what to do, by all means, go ahead and fix it as you see fit.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives

June 30


June 29

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


RD: Woody Williams

Article: Hershel W. Williams (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Last surviving WWII Medal of Honor recipient GreatCaesarsGhost 19:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Decent B-article with a lot of prose. One hesitates to say "blurb", of course, but...--WaltCip-(talk) 19:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear god. Now we'll have a deluge of people opposing a blurb that no one supported. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bill of Rights Bill

Article: Bill of Rights Bill (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​A proposed removal of the Human Rights Act and alteration to the constitutional rights of UK citizens. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, Sky, The Independent
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Article is well sourced, on a recent topic and currently under live discussion by UK Parliament and media. It was today the subject of Prime Minister's Questions. There is further interest given proposed Labour alteration to add a right to abortion into the Bill MKT92 (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose posting "proposed removals" of anything. Mere proposals have no impact. This is just inside baseball of UK politics. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and close “proposed removal” means nothing for ITNR. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is this? What does this even mean? What's the context? Why should ITN care?--WaltCip-(talk) 18:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN blurbs aren't in headlinese, and even headlinese usually has a predicate. What happened to prompt a blurb proposal? The most significant recent update to this story seems to be the bill's introduction, and that happened a full week ago. —Cryptic 18:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not yet This actually is a big deal (for USians, think "repeal of the 2nd amendment" or something similar), but it would only be ITN-worthy if and when it actually happens. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait/Oppose It should get posted if/when it's actually repealed, but this isn't that. The Kip (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until such time that it actually becomes law, if it ever does. People propose repealing things in the US Constitution all the time (seriously, there's always a bill that gets proposed in the House and goes nowhere). No different with the UK, from what I can tell. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 20:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, other than we don't have a constitution, let alone the nonsense and continually reinterpreted "amendments" to one. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, from my understanding (and I'm not an expert), the UK has an unwritten constitution that is formed from a combination of judicial precedent and certain acts of Parliament. The US constitution consists of the actual written constitution and the court's interpretation of our written constitution becomes binding precedent, and therefore part of constitutional law. Our judicial systems are very similar since we both use common law (which I am glad about -- thanks for giving us that!). -- RockstoneSend me a message! 01:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The 1992 amendment did nothing but delay pay raises that legislators give themselves till the next election, another did nothing but let 18.0-21.0 year olds vote and another did nothing but repeal the amendment that made alcoholic beverages illegal nationwide. Another did nothing but allow women to vote. None of those ever had disputed interpretation and I think we agree those were good amendments (also some others like the amendment that banned slavery and the one that made ex-slaves citizens) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Ecuadorian protests

Proposed image
Article: 2022 Ecuadorian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​A series of violent protests (pictured) against President Guillermo Lasso's economic policies causes food and fuel shortages across Ecuador (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, The Washington Post, BBC, The New York Times
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Article is well sourced, updated with current info and the national protests three years prior was posted three times on ITN. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Would this perhaps be better-suited for ongoing? The Kip (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Kip: I was thinking about that, but seeing how the 2019 Ecuadorian protests had their own blurb, I thought a blurb was best although I'm open for either route. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • support blurb. Bedivere (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Political unrest without tangible consequences, so far, doesn't rise to ITN-blurb significance, IMO. – Sca (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The country is facing massive food shortages, the president was impeached for his response, there has been bloody/deadly clashes between military and protestors and there has been takeovers of several providence-level government buildings. I'm pretty sure the country is facing some tangible consequences IMO. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. of fatalities? -- Sca (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So everything I mentioned should be disregarded because it only had 5 deaths? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Been reading about this for the last few weeks, I'm glad to see someone nominate a good quality article about it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. I'm not sure that the articles are placing the cause of fuel and food price increases to be the riots, but some seem to be placing blame on the economic policies. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The protestors have created blockades into entry points and ports in major cities preventing goods from being shipped in and out causing shortages. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't exactly matching the lead of the article. If what you're saying is the case, I'd oppose on article quality. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tuluá prison riot

Article: Tuluá prison riot (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A prison riot and fire killed at least 51 people and 24 injured in Tuluá, Colombia. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, CNN, Washington Post, The Guardian
Credits:

 Ainty Painty (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as a one line stub. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality Contains no information in the article which isnt already on the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.4.173 (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality Literally just a one sentence article. Should be expanded. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, once the article has been expanded. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been expanded and is not a stub anymore. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, stub of all stubs. The Kip (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless someone can tell me why this is notable beyond an arbitrary death toll. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fire has had international coverage (The Guardian, Washington Post, CNN, NBC News, CBS News), and prison riots with such death tolls aren't common in Colombia. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 28

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Martin Bangemann

Article: Martin Bangemann (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Die Welt
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: German minister Grimes2 (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Margaret Keane

Article: Margaret Keane (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Dennis Egan

Article: Dennis Egan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP, KINY
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American politician and broadcaster from Alaska. Article mostly looks good from a first look, with the exception of an incomplete tag on the election history section. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Electoral history section is incomplete and could reflect his most recent elections. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Enlargement of NATO

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: Enlargement of NATO (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Turkey drops its opposition to adding Sweden and Finland to NATO. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Finland and Sweden reach a deal with Turkey to remove its veto on allowing them to join NATO.
Alternative blurb II: Turkey reaches a deal with Finland and Sweden to remove its veto on allowing them to join NATO.
News source(s): Politico EU, AP, Reuters, DW, AlJazeera
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Finland and Sweden have remained non-aligned since the Second World War and this deal clears the largest roadblock in the path for them to join NATO. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose here we go again. How many times do we have to insist that what we all consider ITNR is the formal admission? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't consider it to fit neatly within the Russo-Ukrainian war unless NATO is a belligerent in that war. And I don't really see a good reason for that. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - minor development. nableezy - 21:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Let’s wait until they officially join and post it then as we did with other countries in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just another small step; and hardly an unexpected one. Nfitz (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather more than a small step, as Turkey was the main opponent. The way to membership looks clear. But waiting for the done deal does seem prudent. -- Sca (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't the invitation the most noteworthy event? Formal admission is like posting the inauguration rather than the election. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NATO members still have to unanimously vote them in, and it's possible they won't all vote yes. At the election point, that's when I'd say it's sensible to post to ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Given that this seemed to be the only limiting factor for joining NATO for these countries, we can wait for the confirmation. --Masem (t) 23:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and let's stop with these noms until membership is confirmed. Everything else is just a hurdle to overcome. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the Accession Protocol is signed which, as far as I know, may happen in the next few days. After that we could nominate the treaty coming into force or full membership. Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose wait until if/when they actually join NATO. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Deborah James (journalist)

Article: Deborah James (journalist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Podcast host and cancer awareness activist. Page is short but above stub limit. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Intro should be highlights or summaries, and anything in the intro should be elaborated upon in the main body of the article. Detailed about her cancer funds currently in the intro should be moved to the main body of the wikibio and supported by footnotes and REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC) I have moved that out of the intro. Please add REFs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sam Gilliam

Article: Sam Gilliam (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, CNN, NPR.
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American painter and artist. Article is well sourced, cause of death kidney failure. --VersaceSpace 🌃 17:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support There's a clarification and citation inline tag but overall article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Went ahead and fixed those issues. (Not sure if updaters are supposed to chime in here) 19h00s (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support and yes, nice to chime in and let editors know noted issues have been addressed. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Nick Nemeroff

Article: Nick Nemeroff (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Canadian stand-up comedian. Article is well sourced, cause of death unknown. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Article is a stub. Even well sourced stubs don't have sufficient quality for the Main Page. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This stubby wikibio current has only 141 words of prose. Anything else to write about him? Please expand this article. --PFHLai (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In its current form, the target article isn't worthy of homepage exposure. Schwede66 00:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is basically a stub. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Cüneyt Arkın

Article: Cüneyt Arkın (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Anadolu Agency
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Anlztrk (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Pallonji Mistry

Article: Pallonji Mistry (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hindustan Times
Credits:
Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support While the article is well sourced, his career section could cover more about his business career. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 San Antonio trailer deaths

Article: 2022 San Antonio trailer deaths (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​At least 50 people die in a human smuggling attempt in San Antonio, Texas, United States. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​At least 50 people are found dead in an abandoned tractor-trailer in San Antonio, Texas, United States.
Alternative blurb II: ​At least 50 unlawful migrants are found dead in an abandoned tractor-trailer in San Antonio, Texas, United States.
News source(s): CNN, BBC, AP, Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This appears to be the deadliest human smuggling incident in American History. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 05:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on notability, oppose on quality while article is still a stub. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending quality improvement. The deadliest smuggling incident of its kind in US history is convincing enough.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, support on notability. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality as there is only four sentences about the discovery itself. I imagine more details will emerge in the next couple of days. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment add altblurb2 --LaserLegs (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid it's highly relevant. If they'd walked up to a CBP officer at a port of entry and claimed asylum, they'd not have died in a trailer. That may not be popular, but it's factual. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but the original blurb addresses this concern without deviating from conventional style. It is imprecise (and politically-motivated) to describe migrants as illegal or undocumented. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's neither of those things, it' factual and in this case relevant. Unlawful migrants die in car crashes in the Imperial Valley, or in semi trailers, or die in the Rio Grande, because of their unlawful actions. Migrants don't. It's politically motivated to conflate the two. I know y'all think I'm a pointy POS but it really matters in this case. These people died, tragically, because of their own poor decision making and the blurb should reflect the same. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're proving the point by invoking "poor decision making" to blame these people for their own deaths. You could just as easily blame the US government for maintaining racist immigration policies(as several congressman have done [2]). But it's better to avoid both sides of the political argument by using neutral language. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly it's an horrible blurb. I suggest taking it off altogether. Otherwise, support. Bedivere (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They weren't just hanging out in the trailer for something to do. We mentioned the LGBTQ angle for the Oslo shooting, we need to mention the illegal immigrant angle for this one. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ... in principle, per Simeonovski, pending development of article. Significant case of trafficking in human beings. Very widely and prominently covered. – Sca (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability. Alex-h (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose solely on article quality. It's bigger than a stub, but only barely. -16:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Preceding comment posted by Ad Orientem.
Yep. The world's greatest typist strikes again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability. I also am not too favorable to the blurbs. Probably lean towards Alt. II, but would be more favorable to it if the word "illegal" is removed seeing as this aspect is not confirmed in the article. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article looks good enough and definitely is notable as it is the deadliest smuggling incident in the country's history. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on both quality and notability, the article is no longer a stub. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per above, leaning against ALT2 due to concerns about wording that were raised prior. Ornithoptera (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Similar to the Melilla blurb below (also immigration-related), the event description is shorter than peripheral sections (background, reactions). Joofjoof (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kremenchuk shopping mall attack

Proposed image
Article: Kremenchuk shopping mall attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​A missile strike on a mall in Kremenchuk, Ukraine, kills 20 people and injures at least 56 more. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​20 people are killed and 56 are injured after a missile strike on a mall in Kremenchuk, Ukraine.
News source(s): [3]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: 72 casualties, tragic, definitely notable enough for ITN. interstatefive  01:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Unfortunately the amount of casualties might be even more... So I'd propose changing the line to "At least 16 people are killed and 56 are injured after a missile strikes a mall in Kremenchuk, Ukraine." With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 01:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose already covered in ongoing. Banedon (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While the war may be covered in ongoing individual events are still sufficiently significant to post on ITN, and a missile strike that is almost certainly a war crime is one of those events. BilledMammal (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are no wars without alleged war crimes in modern times, and this isn't the biggest alleged war crime during the invasion so far. After all, the purpose of the ongoing item is exactly to cover such events.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose already covered in ongoing. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Official death toll now 18. These were civilians in a shopping mall. No possible military target anywhere near. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Official death toll now 20. 40 still missing. The Russians say the missile "landed nearby" and that the shopping mall was "empty". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Latest reports say 36 are still missing. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The US, UK and 18 other countries invaded Iraq in 2003 behind some make believe and somehow there weren't daily "war crimes" so lets just put that hyperbole in a box. This attack is strategically worthless and sufficiently covered by being posted in Ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Were the lives of those 18 Ukrainians also worthless? Putin is now re-balancing the wrongs of the 2003 invasion of Iraq in some way? The history of this page goes back only to 5 February 2005, so not easy to see how Wikipedia was reflecting the news at that time. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Will posting this to ITN bring them back? Will it hasten the end of the invasion? Will the naked hypocrisy of the most egregious war crimes offenders of the last 60 years complaining about Russia ever stop? The answer to all three is: no. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Covered by ongoing. This is by far not the worst civilian incident in the war. --Masem (t) 12:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Simeonovski, Masem. Horrific and typically abominable, but not a game-changer in the context of the savage, unprovoked Russian war on Ukraine. – Sca (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, covered by ongoing. Alex-h (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose despite contributing to this article, I feel it is not more significant than other strikes on civilians in Ukraine. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although this is covered by on-going, it is being singled out by world leader like Emanuel Macron as a 'war crime'; it is also a new axis for the Russian invasion towards Zaporizhzhia after the Fall of Severodonetsk in the east last week. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What constitutes a war crime is not made by the determination of a world leader. There's international courts for this. --Masem (t) 23:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports


RD: Michael C. Stenger

Article: Michael C. Stenger (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WaPo
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Was sergeant at arms of the US Senate until he resigned following the January 6 attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Marlin Briscoe

Article: Marlin Briscoe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; The Washington Post; Associated Press
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Graham Skidmore

Article: Graham Skidmore (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Wales Online, BBC, Sky News, The Daily Telegraph
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Died in December 2021, but only publicly announced on 27 June 2022 (thus a provable gap of way more than 2 days) Joseph2302 (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Date of death was 26 December 2021. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • the Wales Online source says "on Boxing Day" which last year could have been the 26th or the 27th, depending on how you look at it. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Telegraph says 26th? So I assume that's what WalesOnline meant also. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, thanks. (Torygraph is behind a paywall for me.) Although, Sky News says 27th. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can confirm that Telegraph says "Boxing Day 2021" (which is 26 December). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2022 Missouri train derailment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2022 Missouri train derailment (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​At least 3 are killed and 50 are injured in a train derailment near Mendon, Missouri, United States (Post)
News source(s): NYT, CNN
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Notable train derailment. [email protected] (he/him) 23:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait -- Train derailments, especially derailments resulting in deaths, are rare, but I'm not sure we normally post these when they result in few deaths. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There have been three derailments with a higher body count this month. I think we would need some (not yet evident) exceptional circumstances to post this. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX. This event has resulted in exceptionally notable coverage compared to other derailment incidents (from my POV), with the incident being front-page news on CNN, NBC, NPR, among other news orgs. Upon reconsideration, I do recommend waiting to see if the death toll rises and perhaps the page views can give an estimate as to whether or not it's ITN-worthy, but unless it kills 500 people, death tolls should not matter here. [email protected] (he/him) 01:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When it involves commercial passenger trains (this was an Amtrak train), we usually are going to post any incident where there is a death and injury toll. Masem (t) 03:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's front page news on a lot of media outlets. I don't understand why people are using death count's as a metric, we should just be using coverage from RS's as a metric. Sea Cow (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many readers don't know which country that's in. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aqaba port chlorine leak

Article: 2022 Aqaba toxic gas leak (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​At least 14 are killed and over 265 injured from a chlorine gas leak at the Port of Aqaba, Jordan. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, AP, AlJazeera, BBC
Credits:

 Masem (t) 21:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support in principle. The article will surely benefit from further expansion even though it's minimally sufficient for posting in its current shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, article is way too short, needs expansion which can happen with time. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no need to rush to post before its ready. "Minimally sufficient" is half right. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing opposition due to expansion, still a "meh" overall. It's certainly a unique enough story. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Fairly wide coverage, now putting toll at 13 or more. – Sca (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded to a smidge under 500 (486 words). --Masem (t) 04:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose disaster stub and not really significant in any way --LaserLegs (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Article can be expanded a little more, but should be good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Lemon v. Kurtzman overturned

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: Separation of church and state in the United States Mgkrupa 00:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mostly under the same principle as I opposed NYSRPA vs. Bruen. It's hard to necessarily determine the level of impact that this will have. I think there's reason to believe that the end of Lemon would on it's own be particularly impactful. I understand I'm citing an argument from the Ninth Circuit rather than the majority opinion, but this simply may just be changing the standard of separation of church and state from a Lemon standard to one more based off Tinker. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Dobbs was the highlight of the SCOTUS term, this decision in Kennedy wasn't a surprise reading the tea leaves, and further, several prior cases suggested the Lemon test was already disfavored. --Masem (t) 02:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it doesn't explicitly overturn Lemon, anyway. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 02:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose is not a landmark decision, it has had no national impact, much less international. Don't get too excited; just because we have included the SCOTUS decision on abortion does not mean that all decisions should be included, as its impact and international interest is minimal. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We don't need an item every time a local court makes a ruling. With a big change of philosophy in the judiciary in that country, there's going to be many more rulings in the next few years. Nfitz (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not important enough to be ITN-worthy. Local news that's not a landmark decision. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russian government defaults

Article: 2022 Russian debt default (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Moody's credit agency declares that the Russian government has defaulted on two international bonds. (Post)
News source(s): (Reuters)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Sovereign default Mgkrupa 01:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, we may also mention at the end: "... for the first time since 1918." (to highlight significance of the event). Source. With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 01:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose already covered in ongoing. Banedon (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not only covered by ongoing, but a country's gov't default on bonds is not an unusual occurence. See South Korea. --Masem (t) 04:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They didn't practically default because they were ready to repay the debt but their accounts in US dollars were frozen due to the invasion. Unless they completely run out of money, which is highly unlikely to happen, this is just a minor technicality.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kiril Simeonovski. They only defaulted on a technicality (they could pay in dollars due to sanctions). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Sports


RD: Mary Mara

Article: Mary Mara (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; The Washington Post; Variety
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Long enough to qualify (400+ words of prose), with no concerns regarding formatting and the deployment of footnotes, and no problems found by Earwig, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Arnold Skolnick

Article: Arnold Skolnick (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Daily Hampshire Gazette
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Designer of the poster for the Woodstock Music Festival Thriley (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now Appropriate orange tag as some of these really tiny sections don't have sources. Expansion would be useful too. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Stanley Cup Finals

Proposed image
Article: 2022 Stanley Cup Finals (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In ice hockey, the Colorado Avalanche defeat the Tampa Bay Lightning to win the Stanley Cup Finals (Conn Smythe Trophy winner Cale Makar pictured). (Post)
News source(s): ESPN GameCast, The Athletic, SportsNet
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article is well made, with multiple understandable lists and readable prose to go along with it. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 03:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article looks good enough (finally a sports article that has prose before being nominated!). Should the blurb be "defeat" or "defeats" in Canadian English? Joseph2302 (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering Avalanche is singular, I’d assume grammatically it’d be “defeat.” The Kip (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Avalanche is plural here, but yes, you conclude correctly. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ITNR item, article looks good. The Kip (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Multiple statements tagged for a citation. As each game has exactly one citiation, there might be other unsourced statements.—Bagumba (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality cn tags must be fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is well sourced, at least for a sports article. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I've gotten plenty of sports blurbs posted without any "at least for a sports article" lower threshold. —Bagumba (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's absurd to demand line-by-line citations for ITN when no such rule exists elsewhere. I'm sick of ITN nominations --especially North American sports -- being held up because of this. -- Vaulter 16:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, the criteria is That the article is adequately referenced (a few cn tags is usually not a barrier to posting, though the article should not lack references in any major section, and biographical information is given special scrutiny.) There are about 4 citation needed tags, which the very definition of a few cn tags. The important content is well cited, and this is just a bureaucracy to stop it being posted based on a few sentences that need a cn tag. Someone could always remove that content though, just to pass this bureaucracy. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted I agree that the article is in solid enough shape that these few remaining tags should not be a barrier to posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ole Miss wins the 2022 College World Series

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2022 College World Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Ole Miss Rebels defeat the Oklahoma Sooners to win the College World Series for the first time in program history. (Post)
News source(s): ESPN Yahoo Sports CBS Sports
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Significant baseball tournament. KingOfAllThings (thou shalt chatter!) 23:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on notability, oppose on quality - what is this? And why are we nominating junk stubs? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not significant and not ITNR. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - No. one. cares!! CR-1-AB (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Already plenty of top baseball stories that we cover, and being a collegiate level tourney, not what we should be covering. --Masem (t) 00:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I almost closed this myself, but since I am highly involved in the baseball arena, I figured I'd chime in that I don't believe the College World Series to be significant enough to post (though I still feel that the college football national championship is). Also, considering article quality, this one doesn't have it. It is lacking any real prose outside of the lead, which had been written before the tourney started, demonstrating a lack of update. The All-Tournament Team isn't even filled out. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Jerzy Kopa

Article: Jerzy Kopa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former Lech Poznań manager. Article needs major expansion and sourcing, nowhere near ready for posting at the moment; nominating to draw attention to it. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: V. Krishnamurthy

Article: V. Krishnamurthy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu Business Line
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Indian civil servant. Article unfortunately is not in a good state and will require significant work. Ktin (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Enyobeni Tavern deaths

Article: Enyobeni Tavern deaths (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​22 people are found dead in a nightclub in East London, South Africa. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Aljazeera, AP, Guardian, Reuters, Cape Times
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Still a disaster stub, needs expanding. 🌈  4🧚‍♂am KING 👑  16:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – This article is a stub and there is still very little information on the disaster. [email protected] (he/him) 16:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There's no point evaluating the posting of this item while the article is still a stub. --WaltCip-(talk) 16:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait It's definitely intriguing, so far... InedibleHulk (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when ready. -- Vaulter 17:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's sourced and no longer a stub now. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, but support on notability. Get a bit more in there fact-wise, and we're good to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, article is still a stub. Will change vote once expanded. The Kip (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, but support on notability. I've also boldly moved it to Enyobeni Tavern deaths, as disaster is a very vague title. BilledMammal (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, both on notability and on quality. The article has been sufficiently expanded and is no longer a stub. However, the number of victims needs to be clarified. The article says 21 while the blurb says 22. Nsk92 (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Waiting There are far more obvious and pressing clarifications to be made than whether one unidentified victim was killed or injured. Like what killed or injured anyone, nevermind why and how. Where and when is a good start, but better suited (qualitywise) for the opening page of a mystery novel than the entirety of an ostensibly informative encylopedia entry. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality everything in the Incident section of the article is only tangentially relevant (like A promotional Facebook post for the weekend party at the tavern drew media attention as it concluded with Kuzofiwa which roughly translates to "we will die".) or seems to be WP:SPECULATION based on what one person thinks they saw. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the speculation is present in the sources. From eye witnesses I can speculate it was probably a crowd crush and that police and medicals were only called in three hours after the crush, but that's only speculation, no one is pinning this down. But law enforcement have so far not been definitive on anything beyond number of victims and underage drinking. The mystery and speculation is in sources, Unlike Astroworld Festival crowd crush where we knew almost right away what happened, here there is still a large ambiguity in good sources from the past hour, even though we are 36 hours after the disaster. Sources are pointing out in their titles that this is mysterious. Pikavoom Talk 13:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ... in principle, pending development of an acceptable article. Mysterious mass killing mainly of teenagers. Widely covered. Developing. – Sca (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Only of teenagers, some say. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All those currently identified are between 13 to 17 years old. Some early sources were mistaken, but all later sources that are current have 13 to 17. There are also 5-6 unidentified victims, so the range may change, but they were mostly or all teens. Pikavoom Talk 13:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck 'mainly.' -- Sca (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerned about the article title. From what I see, the business this happened at isn't notable, so we should be using the normal location based naming. The article was moved to this name after this ITNC was made. --Masem (t) 13:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I placed it at East London tavern disaster to begin with, and then someone added East Cape East London, East Cape tavern disaster, and then it moved to the tavern name, and then disaster turned into deaths. Because what happened is uncertain, it is hard to name. It will probably move to "crowd crush", "poisoning", or something else once investigation gives some results. Pikavoom Talk 13:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggest "South Africa tavern deaths" or "South Africa tavern killings." East London, SAF, isn't a headline location. It seems obvious the victims were killed by something, probably a toxic chemical of some kind. -- Sca (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on nobility, article would do better with information about the cause of death. Alex-h (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Going with "at least 21" per the article and MOS:NUMERAL – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Ken Knowlton

Article: Ken Knowlton (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: "a Father of Computer Art and Animation" Thriley (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Education history should be converted to prose and referenced. SpencerT•C 14:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sievierodonetsk (2022)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Battle of Sievierodonetsk (2022) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Battle of Sievierodonetsk ends in a Russian victory (Post)
News source(s): [4]
Credits:
Article updated
Nominator's comments: We posted the sinking of the Moskva, but not the end of the Siege of Mariupol. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be better to say that Russian forces seized control of the city, as there's potentially a possible counterattack to take it back? --Masem (t) 01:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posible counterattack clearly a WP:CRYSTAL BALL, there are news that Russian forces are now entering and laying siege to Lysychansk.OP blurb seems fine, short and neutral.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its not so much CRYSTAL, but simply that the overall war in the Ukraine is still going, so there easily could be future action there, so there's no finality to having claimed just the city. --Masem (t) 15:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to propose an altblurb; I just took the result that's currently in the infobox of the article. Banedon (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Another long, grueling battle in eastern Ukraine, but it doesn't seem particularly pivotal; the war goes on. – Sca (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Sca. Just another local Stalingrad. Arado Ar 196 (CT) 12:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I forget the reasoning for why we didn't run that one, Arado Ar 196.[sarcasm]Ixtal ( T / C ) Join WP:FINANCE! 12:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A contingent of stubborn editors felt it was better suited for ongoing.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's probably not a done deal yet, and the war is bound to continue for much longer. KittenKlub (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The fall of Severodonetsk into Russian hands indicates that Ukraine's fight for self-determination is threatened more severely than previously expected. First the fall of Mariupol and now the fall of Severodentsk. Highly newsworthy and topical for "In the news" candidates. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most RS indicating result of the battle ultimately leads to full Russian control of the Luhansk region very soon. EkoGraf (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Covered By Ongoing If feeling an article about a war is the most suitable place to post the results of its continual constituent battles makes one stubborn, too bad, this one prefers the term "solid". InedibleHulk (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - covered by ongoing, not a pivotal event. 🌈  4🧚‍♂am KING 👑  16:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) 2022 Oslo shootings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2022 Oslo shootings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Two people are killed and 22 injured during mass shootings in Oslo, Norway in an attack believed to be targetting local LGBT pride celebrations. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Two people are killed and 22 injured during mass shootings in Oslo, Norway during local LGBT pride celebrations.
News source(s): BBC, CNN
Credits:
 — Ixtal ( T / C ) Join WP:FINANCE! 13:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably needs a bit more prose, I get 336 words presently. Could expand more on the actual event (including about the LGBT celebrations, etc.) --Masem (t) 14:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be expanding it over the next few hours, thanks for the recommendation Masem. :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) Join WP:FINANCE! 15:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Expansion is good, so Support on significance as well. --Masem (t) 18:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I must admit that shootings have become more frequent in a small peaceful country like Norway in the past couple of years, but this is still a notable incident under the circumstances in which it happenned.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - 2 dead simply isn't enough. Massacres of dozens or hundreds in Africa can't get to the front page, I don't see why this is different. Sheila1988 (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the death toll of this month's 2022 Bankass massacres is 132, but it hasn't been nominated. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MINIMUMDEATHs is not a policy, but instead we judge by first and foremost the event actually being nominated, then article quality, then that it is being covered and then finally whether it is an unusual situation or if its commonplace (eg the reason we avoid posting most shootings in the US). That Oslo is not associated with mass shootings, this clearly is an unusual situation as supported by sources, so that's a good reason for us to include. --Masem (t) 17:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean how much international (English-language?) news coverage is being given to "the event actually being nominated"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the amount of sources covering the event nor placement in those sources matters (though if its clearly across a wide swath of international papers "above the fold", its probably something not to ignore.) A topic can be significant if only a handful of RSes cover it, as often the case of disasters in South America, Africa, or Asia. --Masem (t) 20:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that. Perhaps what is "significant" is a more subjective judgement. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support incredibly unusual mass shooting event in Europe. Motives are now clearly more than just "angry man with an AR-15". Article is reasonable. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per TRM. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per TRM Grimes2 (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - only two deaths make this below the threshold at which we usually post, and it doesn't seem to be making huge waves either. The Guardian have buried it quite far down on their front page. Gun crime in Europe is lower than the US but it's also not unheard of and this would open the door to quite a few postings.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than Brehvik, I can't recall such a crime taking place in Norway in recent history. We shouldn't be using mass shootings in the US as any kind of barometer of notability here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kongsberg attack Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, that was ITN, just as this should be too for the volume of injured especially and the motive. Thanks Jim, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would add that they are treating this as Islamic terrorism-related, which absolutely doesn't happen that often in Norway. Masem (t) 20:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being more unusual & more widely reported doesn't make them more notable. Twenty people were killed in the almost ignored Las Tinajas massacre, which is of greater notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it makes the event more notable, how absurd to think otherwise. And I must have missed the nomination for the Las Tinajas massacre, did you nominate it? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Las Tinajas massacre was nominated by someone else. I supported it, but very few people were interested in the article or the nomination. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a stub so rightly didn't get posted. So what's your point here? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be a stub. Two Norwegians are more valuable than 50 Nigerians, 20 Mexicans, 11 other Mexicans or 132 Malians?! This Western-centrism is ridiculous; this article has been edited more than all those put together have been. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's Wikipedia, so you can do something about it yourself instead of getting worked up about it here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The edit histories of all those articles show that I've done so. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a terrorist attack in Mali isn't comparable to one committed in Norway (just as a deadly earthquake in Japan is not comparable to one in Spain, Ireland or Madagascar). Basically because in some countries it's commonplace and in others it's strictly exceptional. Nor are we responsible for the fact that in many "non-Western" countries mass violence is routine and often systematic. Unfortunately. We have to keep in mind that ITN is not a daily news space and also, because of the limited space, we have to be strict in what news we include. A Western bias is something that does not exist here. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 24 casualties, even if only two are deaths, is a major event for any Scandinavian country. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mass shooting with sufficient news coverage. Motive and death toll are irrelevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Extremely unusual event, worldwide news coverage[5][6] --Bjerrebæk (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 23:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull -- At two dead, this is not notable enough for ITN... give me a break. Unless we're going to create systemic Nordic bias, now? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 00:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's general Western-centrism. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • An attack in a county that rarely has violent attacks like this, and with presumed ties to Islamic terrorism? If this was a simple domestic spat, I would agree we shouldn't have posted, but even this is a major story. --Masem (t) 01:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being unusual doesn't make it especially important. This month's 2022 Bankass massacres have a death toll of 132 & were committed by an Islamic terrorist group, yet that's not even nominated & very few people show any interest in it. If this shooting with a death toll of 2 had taken place anywhere outside the developed world it's unlikely it'd have been nominated & there's no chance it would have been posted. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to have nominated the massacres when they happened, we can only judge nominated stories. It is inappropriate to complain about ITN not showing any interest in it when no one nominates it to start. --Masem (t) 03:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even when they are nominated, there's often very little interest shown in them. For example Las Tinajas massacre, with a death toll of 20, was almost ignored. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if anyone could have been bothered to expand the Las Tinajas article beyond a stub it would have made a difference. As it is still a stub, it's clear that even the people here complaining don't care about it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, I think a precondition of any !vote here should be at least one edit on the article concerned. Once the article as perfect, of course, no-one else would get to vote. Awkward downside. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many people vote against articles being posted, which they agree are important enough, on the grounds of the articles being insufficient, despite having not tried to improve them. Very few articles are close to perfect during their nominations. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my sarcasm. Yes exactly. So instead of the usual "go fix it, I'm too busy" attitude, I'm suggesting that editors make an actual contribution to the article before they they get express an opinion. Even if an item does not get posted, at least more effort is expended in improving it. Not really a very radical idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's unusual, but I really don't think it belongs in ITN. But I understand that I'm in the minority here and consensus is definitely not going to change on this. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree re ITN. The shooter was a "'suspected radicalised Islamist,' and had a history of mental illness," per BBC (et al.). We seem to have a tendency to overplay any violent crime in Norway, which perhaps is perceived as an ideal Western democracy (and I say this as one of Norwegian descent). But not in favor of pulling. -- Sca (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 24

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


2022 Melilla incident

Article: 2022 Melilla incident (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​At least 23 migrants die trying to cross the border fence in Melilla between Morocco and Spain (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​At least 23 people die in an attempt to jump the border fence in Melilla between Morocco and Spain
Alternative blurb II: ​At least 23 people die in skirmishes with Moroccan and Spanish gendarmerie forces at the border fence in Melilla.
News source(s): NYT, Independent
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Dozens dead and hundreds of people injured. StellarHalo (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on quality, support on notability. Article is a mess at the moment. The Kip (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added alt2. These people tried to fight the gendarmerie guards to get through, the prior blurbs suggested they jumped and died. --Masem (t) 12:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Four days old. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Brutal incident. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reactions section is longer than attacks section. Missing "Background" section and map common to disaster stubs. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Harry Gration

Article: Harry Gration (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: article looks fine, someone please add updaters Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • No issues with length (400+ words), deployment of footnotes, or formatting. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 00:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Supreme Court of the United States declares that the United States Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In a 6–3 decision, the United States Supreme Court determines abortion is not a protected right, overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Here it is. We've known for weeks, but the decision overturning Roe v. Wade is official. While much of the world makes progress on abortion rights, the U.S. is going back to the dark ages. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I hate how my country has become. Marioedit8 (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please specify a blurb instead of rushing to nominate this. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 14:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I specified one before your edit. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added alt blurb as what's overtturned is going to have a bigger impact. I need to update on the decision as articles role in to support quotes from it, but I'm on it. --Masem (t) 14:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trying to get sources to include Thomas' concurrence. The language in that says things like Obergefell is next. --Masem (t) 15:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW , I think I've fairly expanded the opinion section (new for today) as to have the quality and update ready for posting. There will obviously be a ton of reactions but I rather wait to see how those fall to see how to write such a section. --Masem (t) 15:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clearly notable and featured prominently in news websites at the moment. The fact they've overturned a previous ruling makes it a lot more interesting and unusual. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Overturning a constitutional right in this way after nearly 50 years is virtually unprecedented.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - but think the blurb should be The Supreme Court of the United States, in a a 6–3 decision, eliminates a constitutional right to abortion in the United States, overturning 'Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. nableezy - 14:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. starship.paint (exalt) 14:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Normally I don't support blurbs for legal cases, but this is an obvious exception. Probably the most significant case in my lifetime with huge implications and bucking a global trend in law. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Obviously notable. Some people in my country watched The Handmaid's Tale and mistook it for an instruction manual. Insane. Davey2116 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for immediate posting. We can fine-tune the language later, but this is beyond any doubt huge news of global significance. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 14:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This is breaking news around the world. RTE, BBC, Le Figaro, Al Jazeera.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 14:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Looking at past postings, we only post stories on changes to abortion laws when there is broader context. For Poland, we only posted because of mass protests; for Ireland, we only posted because of a referendum. Other countries, such as Columbia and Mexico, weren't posted at all - we shouldn't make an exception just because this is America, we should instead wait and see if there is broader context that will justify posting. BilledMammal (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think mass protests are virtually guaranteed. Watch for an article on that. starship.paint (exalt) 14:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; probably tonight, otherwise tomorrow. However, we should wait until those protests start and that article is written. BilledMammal (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the protests that we're blurbing here, it's this fucked decision. Worst decision since Plessy v. Ferguson. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but we shouldn't. We don't blurb similar decisions from other countries, we blurb the protests or the referendum. We also generally don't blurb top court rulings from other countries, even when they are consequential on an international scale. BilledMammal (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If posted, we should carefully ensure neutrality. Perhaps something more like: The Supreme Court of the United States declares that the United States Constitution does not provide a right to an abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. "Protect the right" is a bit sided, and linking to Abortion-rights movements seems a bit sided as well. The ruling does not appear to override any places that have this "right" specifically given, such as by states. — xaosflux Talk 14:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the alt blurb is better for this reason.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 14:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just want to make it clear that this ruling means that there is not a constitutionally protected right to the procedure, not that any other laws that create this right are nullified. — xaosflux Talk 14:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe something like ​In a 6–3 decision, the United States Supreme Court determines abortion is not a constitutionally protected right, overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. (just inserting "constitutionally")? — xaosflux Talk 14:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not 100% sure if this should be ITN, but I think enough of the community would. The alt blurb, with the insertion: "...constitutionally protected right..." added seems more neutral - for anyone not familiar with US laws I'd want to make the blurb clear that it doesn't nullify protections provided by legislatures. — xaosflux Talk 15:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A constitutional right has been taken away. "Constitution does not protect the right" seems neutral to me.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alt blurb is better than my blurb. I'm not neutral on this issue and Masem is better at maintaining objectivity on this than I am, clearly. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think in terms of front page of WP, more will recognize the names of Roe and Casey than Dobbs, though we can expect Dobbs to become household from that. Hence why I focused on the overturning of Roe and Casey.
    It could be "constitutional right". The decision (my super quick read) says that that states can opt to make it a protected right, but not one protected by the US Constitution. Masem (t) 15:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, see File:Abortion access protections by US state.svg for a chart - also this wouldn't prevent the US Congress from passing a law to create protections. — xaosflux Talk 15:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it does, since the opinion says only states can make that judgement. Works both ways, no federal ban, but no federal rights allowance either. Masem (t) 16:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure on that - but it's well beyond the blurb discussion; seems like the US congress may create new rights that are not "from" the constitution - which mostly says what they may not do -- agree on the both ways: if there were an actual federal ban or protection law passed by congress the courts would defer to them - again going waaaaaay out of what belongs in a blurb - all i was trying to convey is that this was not a nullification of other standing protections/entitlements. — xaosflux Talk 16:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The broader context is that this overturns 50 years of policy in what is a highly contentious area of politics of one of the world's most populous and most influential countries (and I speak here as a Brit). Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I just don't have the words today. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - This is a landmark decision making headlines worldwide. -- Veggies (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I've my doubts, actually. The SCOTUS is saying that the right to abortion is not constitutionally protected (as it's in other countries), so States, at the state level, will be able to limit or prohibit abortion, this being a sub-national issue. Especially considering that there are already states that have already legislated in a very strict manner. I don't see it very clear. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean this probably constitutes OR but this is in direct contrast to the ruling yesterday that said that gun rights are federally protected and states don't have a right to legislate/vote on them. Like Muboshgu, I am not neutral here. cause you know, guns have rights that are protected but women need to have them voted on! PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    and it's regrettable and very sad. Both decisions. But here we are evaluating something else: if this decision has such national (and even international) relevance that it should be on Main Page, as this is not an American newspaper. Beyond the hyperventilation that it may provoke and that, I insist, I agree to oppose SCOTUS decision. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially considering that the approval of abortion rights in some countries did not have enough support to be included in the MP. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think something impacting the rights of more than half of a very large countries entire population is probably worthy of being on the main page, even if that country is the United States and it is likely to have ripple effects elsewhere. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By this rule, almost any news affecting the U.S., or India, or China would have to be included. Fortunately it doesn't work that way here. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Token Oppose internal politics, little/no impact on the rest of the world. There are lots of decisions by other supreme courts every day. However, I recognize that lots of people seem to care (hence the near-unanimous supports above), so /shrug. Banedon (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're only saying this to be contrary and dismissive. 167.98.52.246 (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have concurred had you not laid your cards on the table with that ending remark. Flippancy with regards to nominating an article whose content has material implications for millions of people is, I think, indecorous. Frevangelion (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location, are not usually met with concurrence from the community. This isn't a case of pro-US bias, the outcome has been widely covered in the media of many countries. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The altblurb is better, I think. Edge3 (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt1 per nom. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb 1 is fine imo DemonDays64 (talkcontribs) 15:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's uncharacteristic of me to oppose this subject but I don't think it's fair to say that out of all opinions that came and have come out of the Supreme Court this term, that this is the only case that goes on the In the News section and to make it seem that way isn't neutral. Remember, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Trillfendi (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Roe v. Wade has been around for nearly half a century, and seeing it overturned is pretty big news. I think this should be on ITN. Although I would make the blurb include the name of the suit (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ActuallyNeverHappened02 (talkcontribs) 15:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While a political earthquake in the U.S., it has no wider effect on the world at large. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Basil the Bat Lord Not much of the stuff ITN features affects the whole world. Take the Afghanistan earthquake. It greatly affected Afghanistan, but not the rest of the world as much. interstatefive  15:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why "impact on the rest of the world" has never been part of the ITN criteria.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Probably shakes everyone reading this, especially people like me who have attended protests. interstatefive  15:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support due to the fact that, most likely, thousands of people in the US will be affected by this decision. Mobius Gerig (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt1. A very important decision, definitely... — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Obviously noteworthy (to understate it drastically), already covered by international media, international repercussions already evident [7]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Token Oppose as far as I can see, this is not a ban on abortion per se, just a revocation of a definite right. Looking at abortion law#Judicial decisions, a few changes had been made in recent years by various countries to abortion laws. The Americans are quite unique in making a gigantic deal out of it. But alas, this is certainly going to pass. Juxlos (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Interstatefive. The fact that it impacted United States as a whole should be enough for ITN. For those saying pro-American bias, we should remember US is also a country and there's no reason its politics shouldnt be nominated as much as there's also no reason for smaller countries events to be excluded. Nyanardsan (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support This one's a no-brainer. X-Editor (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, a major political and societal development. Nsk92 (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine with Bruen Two concurrent "landmark" 6-3 decisions on personal constitutional rights are bigger than one. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is one of the biggest US politics stories of the year. I am writing this from the third world country that goes by the name the “United” States of America. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
plus Posted. El_C 16:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Post-posting support -- thank you for posting this, El_C. Also glad we didn't post Bruen. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 16:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I suggested it mainly as a favour to Masem. But he gets credit either way, he's probably glad. Good call, C! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - very notable, and also it's good news. CR-1-AB (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • CORRECTION NEEDED @Masem: The decision to overturn Roe and Casey was actually 5 to 4. The decision to uphold the mississippi law is the 6 to 3 ruling. X-Editor (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The decision is the judgment which was 6-3. The majority opinion was 5-4. It may be best to say "in a majority decision" to avoid the numbers. Masem (t) 17:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone's already changed it to 5-4, but I agree "majority decision" may be better as 5-4 implies Roberts dissented along with the liberals, which isn't the case.Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done  — Amakuru (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull; post-posting oppose local news, yet another example of western narcissism on Wikipedia. Had this happened to algeria or russia or even Germany, (as it indeed it has been happening in other countries throughout the years) no one would have given two shits. But this pertains to the cultural warfare in america so here we are 5.44.170.26 (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support I rarely frequent ITN, mainly to alleviate US-centric bias, but this news is really big: one doesn't see a removoval of legal protection to millions of people everyday. Packing of the SCOTUS is probably the most important legacy of the Trump presidency with long lasting consequences. Pavlor (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 23

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


(NEW) RD: Leo Posada

Article: Leo Posada (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): El Nuevo Herald
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Did not see this until today. It's short but I'm expanding it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ernst Jacobi

Article: Ernst Jacobi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SZ
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: German actor on stage, in film, on TV, best known for a Nazi role in the Tin Drum. Was a stub, but we added a bit. Enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Long enough to qualify (400+ words of prose), with no concerns regarding formatting and the deployment of footnotes, and no problems found by Earwig, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Paula Stafford

Article: Paula Stafford (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.theaustralian.com.au/the-oz/news/the-aussie-woman-who-made-the-bikini-happen-has-died/news-story/9476fce01b21e88d9527bc5cb9b758d7
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: "Australia's original bikini designer". --PFHLai (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Article covers the 'essentials' (pun intended) and meets basic minimums for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. Short but meets minimum standards. SpencerT•C 14:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rima Melati

Article: Rima Melati (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tempo, Voice of Indonesia
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Indonesian actress. Joofjoof (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support sfn TEMPO 1980 has no target. Otherwise ok. Grimes2 (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support @Joofjoof:: I think I've found your missing link, but I'm not 100% sure, so please check it. Otherwise the article looks fine.KittenKlub (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks KittenKlub! That looks correct to me. Joofjoof (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grenadian general election

Article: 2022 Grenadian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: National Democratic Congress led by Dickon Mitchell wins a majority of seats in the Grenadian general election. (Post)
News source(s): AP News
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Opposition won for first time since 2008, did not nominate this before as it was not ready, now it should be. No picture for the new PM as of now. BastianMAT (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural Support for a bluetagged recurring event and congratulations to Dickon Amiss Thomas Mitchell for not only rising to lead a nation after eight months in politics, but for proudly bearing one of the funniest names in the game. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently, Dickon Mitchell defeated a guy named Keith Mitchell (no relation). Tube·of·Light 12:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aye, that part's funny because it's true. On the other hand, I can Google no record of "a Miss Thomas Mitchell" having ever existed, so that's absurd. Plenty of Mrs. Thomas Mitchells and a few Thomas Mitchells from or near the great state of "Miss.", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Something is amiss there. Ought to be. --PFHLai (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • There ought to be a miss I'm missing, you mean? I don't know, but I've seen a Thomasina on Twitter. As her blurb announces her as a Wicca Princess and "smart kid", though, I don't feel quite right about linking her into anything sketchy. So didja hear the one about the West Hendon pensioner and her inattentive watchdogs? Well, it turns out, they're close enough! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Results section must have prose. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article looks good enough IMO. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Rm "needs attention"; still no prose summary of results. SpencerT•C 00:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until there's a prose summary of the results. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Yuri Shatunov

Article: Yuri Shatunov (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Russian singer. A few issues with citations and tone that need to be fixed. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, Article is good for RD. Alex-h (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article is orange and yellow-tagged. Far from ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Discography section is largely unsourced. Please add more REFs to this wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thiomargarita magnifica

Article: Thiomargarita magnifica (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Thiomargarita magnifica, a large single-cell bacterium visible to the naked eye, is described. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

 Banedon (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magnificent sulfur margarita? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Michelle Hunziker's visibly naked eyes? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The record size is rather one-dimensional as the organism is a filament rather than a big blob. But it seems to have a novel approach to managing its DNA and that seems to be significant science. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose so what? I don't see any significance to this being described, it is covered in news articles, but it's not even on the front page of most news websites. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Longest bacteria known Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Joseph2302. Unfortunately, I don't see the value of this either. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Joseph. DYK. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Exactly as weird as running into an 8,849 metre tall basketball player, to paraphrase "Jean-Marie Volland from the Joint Genome Institute at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in the US". That's near 30,000 feet, in the US. Not just a little big. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This sort of thing is much better suited to DYK than ITN. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- great for DYN, but not appropriate for ITN. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Hugh McElhenny

Article: Hugh McElhenny (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article is GA. I'll check to see it still should be. Seems he died on June 17, but the death was just announced today. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) US SCOTUS on gun rights

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In a 6–3 ruling, the United States Supreme Court rules that gun possession in public is a constitutional right under the Second Amendment. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I know thus will trigger several comments being local politics only, but I think we are all aware of the problem with gun control in the US as a implicit long stand aspect (we only post the most serious parts). This ruling undoes a 110 yr law and makes it harder for states to deny gun ownership, which is excepted to exasperate the gun violence issue. I know there is a mess of other common ITNC complaints that could come up, so I can only convince posting this so far. I will add that within the week (perhaps tomorrow) we will know about the abortion case where if the leaked decision holds, roe v. Wade would be overturned, and that is likely a more groundbreaking case. Masem (t) 18:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am no legal expert, but this is not only something that just effects the US, but also would only effect certain states/municipalities that have certain restrictions on gun ownership. That, coupled without a knowable and quantifiable impact on gun violence in the US, makes this an oppose in my mind. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In general while the immediate effect is for only about 8 states, the decision defines gun possession in public places as a protected right. This as the court is also about to rule abortion is no longer one (it that leak holds). That is what makes the ruling significant. Masem (t) 19:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose only because of the outcome. I'd have supported it hands down had the conclusion been the opposite. Now it's crystal clear that the resolution of the mass-shooting problem in the US should be sought in the sanity of those wielding guns.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not a dramatic ruling with drastic implications. New York state will just have to rewrite its law. Thriley (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's wait to see what else they gut. They effectively overturned Miranda too. —Cryptic 19:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No just that an officer that violates your minrada rights can't be civilly sued for that. But the criminal court implications still hold Masem (t) 19:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Moderately narrow ruling on the "proper cause" requirement for CCW. Notable in politics and US, but not that big overall. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes, DarkSide830, this only affects (sic) the US. Please see Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Please_do_not..., which includes oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive. Kiril, your comment is complete nonsense to me. This is a major change in this country that will worsen one of our biggest ongoing problems. It's covered in the news majorly. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Muboshgu: I’ve always had the hope that, on a good day, authorities would impose stricter gun control, which would be the right news to post and something that regularly appears in my comments on individual shooting incidents. And now we have exactly the opposite. I don’t wanna think and can’t imagine that it can get any worse.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware of the policy, yes, but if it affects only, say, eight states, then the event in question has to be fairly impactful, in my mind, to rise to the level of ITN inclusion. An event like an election or natural disaster may impact only a portion of the world, but these events have a clearer and likely larger impact on the regions in question. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Almost nothing will change. Surprise! Now I'm off to see my shrink, Dr. Pangloss. – Sca (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's time for closure as there's no need to discuss this shame any further.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- this is big news, but it will be overshadowed if SCOTUS overturns Roe in Dobbs, and I think that's far more important to be blurbed. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose…and?? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The seven states and DC who have the "proper cause" laws include heavily populated ones like California and New Jersey - there's going to be a lot more people walking around with concealed weapons. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose New_York_State_Rifle_&_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen#Impact is pretty underwhelming in terms of describing the impact from this ruling. SpencerT•C 02:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a big change for the c. 30 million Americans who live in de facto no-issue jurisdictions and the c. 30 million Americans who live in de facto may-issue ones. Now everyone will live in either a shall-issue place or one where licensing isn't required at all to legally carry. On the other hand in New York City touching or having a gun is so illegal it's punished way worse than intending to reverse a shift of the gun in your pants and accidentally pulling the trigger in a dance club, which is only misdemeanor reckless endangerment. An American football star once spent 2009-11 in prison for that (the mayor wanted him to get the 3.5+ years regular people would've gotten for simple possession, the only thing shot was himself). Shall-issue has probably never been tried at such high population densities, metro area populations and low levels of gun culture before, anywhere in the 1st world (at least since too long ago to assume whatever happened will repeat, so this is essentially the world's first experiment on what happens if a modern 1st world city of 24 million suddenly goes from no-issue to shall-issue, in a place with no gun culture. The highest population density parts of USA were no-issue till today, some rich, some poor enough for gang gun battles, some in between, will the rate of non-criminals being robbed or shot accidentally or on purpose dramatically change? New York City has neighborhoods up to ~160,000 people per square mile, not far behind Hong Kong (the Mong Kok district of Kowloon Peninsula 340,000/mi²). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Good Faith SMW and Masem make some fine points above, but I can't imagine getting even half of them across in a sufficiently terse blurb. Not so much the thing itself here as its past and future associations altogether. The time to blurb the abortion story has passed (though may return) and the next American mass public shooting nom is (apparently?) sooner than ever now; if either or both are linked to this decision in the news, we could combine them. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nothing has changed, if the outcome had been the opposite, I imagine this would have way more news coverage, as it would have been way more significant and ITN-worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate, in a rare outbreak of bipartisanship, has passed a law that would tighten controls on the sale and possession of firearms, and passage by the House and enactment seem assured. [8] [9] [10]Sca (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In other news, a 17-year-old now stands accused in yet two more "Waco shooting incidents", despite Texas laws already in effect to prevent someone that young from packing a pistol in the first place. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Mahmut Ustaosmanoğlu

Article: Mahmut Ustaosmanoğlu (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): haberturk, tekdeeps, Sabah
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Ainty Painty (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Orange-tagged section, insufficient depth of coverage of subject's life and career. SpencerT•C 14:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: