Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

Yair Lapid in 2022
Yair Lapid

How to nominate an item[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • 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...[edit]

  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...[edit]

  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[edit]

July 2[edit]

Disasters and accidents


July 1[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Richard Taruskin[edit]

Article: Richard Taruskin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
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: One of the most influential musicologists I know. Sadly, so far the NYT with its paywalled obit is the only serious paper to have noticed that he died. Wait? But why? - Many helped yesterday with small corrections, but basic improvements were made by Aza24 beginning of the year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Executive of Hong Kong[edit]

Article: Chief Executive of Hong Kong (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: John Lee suceeds Carrie Lam as the Chief Executive of Hong Kong. (Post)
News source(s): [1], [2]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: There is precedent for placing the HK CE in ITN, as this was done for the previous CE [[Posted_Hong_Kong_Chief_Executive_election]]. There also seemed to be a degree of consensus in the nomination for the election results, given that an "attention needed" tag was placed on the nomination. [[3]Carter00000 (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Glad to see the proposed blurb doesn't include that awkward word "elected". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But this transfer of power is the result of an election, just not a free one. Regardless I feel like the election itself would have been the bigger news story, and that got turned down from ITN because it was a sub-national one. (Even if WP:ITN/R guidelines allow for the posting of election results in dependant territories). 🌈  4🧚‍♂am KING 👑  21:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The election itself might have been the bigger news story if it had involved more than one candidate. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose a non-election with no candidate field is basically like promoting an actual business CEO or homeowners association President (though that has an election...) and hardly news worthy, much less main page newsworthy. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Taiwan we've posted other not-a-country elections like Taiwan but we should call it what it was: an election. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's call it a selection -- that would be more accurate. -- Sca (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you're not being serious with that comparison. The Kip (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Subnational and not particularly notable. The Kip (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nominator. There is precedent for placing the HK CE in ITN, as this was done for the previous CE [[Posted_Hong_Kong_Chief_Executive_election]]. There also seemed to be a degree of consensus in the nomination for the election results, given that an "attention needed" tag was placed on the nomination. [[4]] Carter00000 (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Technoblade[edit]

Article: Technoblade (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5], 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 is up to date, but was very recently made. Mobius Gerig (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I mentioned here? VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 08:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, meets criteria for RD, but it could be improved a little bit (and this article got a lot of attention). Personally seeing this news is shocking. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are there no coverage of the subject before mid-2021? Juxlos (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There has been. See the article for examples of 2021 sources. VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 10:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very well known personality with (now) plenty of reliable sources. Sad that so many of those sources only exist as a result of his death and as a result we have an article now but couldn't justify one while he was alive. WaggersTALK 11:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Waggers: It definitely is sad. That seems to be the way, sometimes. Face-sad.svg TheSandDoctor Talk 17:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support May be biased as a main contributor of the article, but he is a popular internet personality (his death was #1 trending on YT) and there are plenty of sources now (plus suggested sources from 2021). Also for the other reasons above. VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 11:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, notable personality. Surprised that the article has only just been created, Technoblade was listed on the Dream SMP article since 2021, and seems as notable on his own as a Minecraft player and youtuber. Very sad. Salpynx (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with his death being #1 on YouTube trending, I want to pay my respects all to him and his family, it has to be hard times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preston52110 (talkcontribs) 12:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality the article is correctly orange-tagged as needing expansion. Article quality is the only consideration for posting on RD, and this article is too short and non comprehensive. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my ignorance, but is this about a real person? – Sca (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: Yes, "Technoblade" was his online pseudonym. Anarchyte (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. – Sca (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The page is very NSFW due to extensive vandalism. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the recent history, I'm only seeing one account adding nonsense, and someone has blocked that. While "stability" should be there, we discount vandalism as a quality issue since that's beyond normal editing control. (Obviously, vandalism needs to be removed before posting). --Masem (t) 13:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Andrew Davidson: article is now ECP. Anarchyte (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's my impression that the topic will tend to attract especially sophisticated and motivated vandals. And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing turns out to be an attention-seeking hoax. We don't need this aggravation. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • We have RSes like the BBC reporting on this, and given the video statement from his father, it is very very very unlikely this is a hoax. We should not presume anything like that given the source quality. If it was only coming out of a source like dotesports.com, yes, I would be potentially suspicious as well, but that's not here in this case. --Masem (t) 17:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. Subpar sourcing and orange tagged. No opposition to it going onto the main page after this is resolved. Anarchyte (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anarchyte: It is no longer orange tagged and sources have improved to include The Washington Post among other RS. Could you please take another look? TheSandDoctor Talk 16:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support one unsourced claim which could use either citation or removal pending such cite, but otherwise just fine. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Much of the article is cited to secondary sources, but those sources are only repeating the subject's claims with attribution to him. This is problematic given the subject has admitted to providing false information. Even his name "Alexander" is not cited. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    His name is cited in the article and coverage has expanded to include CNN, The Washington Post, NBC, Kotaku, etc. TheSandDoctor Talk 17:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - on notability. CR-1-AB (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a policy-based vote: 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. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Technoblade is notable on a higher degree. CR-1-AB (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that Technoblade is notable on a higher or any degree is not relevant when it comes to !voting Support or Oppose for RD noms here on ITN/C. Focus on article quality and MainPage readiness, please. --PFHLai (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think I am satisfied with the progress that has been made on the article over the past day. Looks ready to go. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there's quite a bit of chat about sourcing/WP:SYNTH on the talkpage. We shouldn't post this unless there's consensus that the article is fine for that, otherwise it violates article quality requirement for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph2302: The only talk of synth on the talk page was me clarifying a policy misunderstanding another editor had and that section has been resolved. It appears that sourcing concerns raised on the talk page have been resolved? TheSandDoctor Talk 16:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Many problems persist on this article. Until the article reaches C-class, oppose. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not unprecedented for start-class articles to be posted to ITN. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    C-class is not considered a requirement for posting. WaltCip-(talk) 17:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
C-class is not a requirement for ITN, but this article needs copyediting and checks for flow to be free from WP:RECENTISM. Once those issues are fixed, support. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article does not need a copyedit to go RD, and considering this article has received a massive amount of quality changes only recently I don't think it needs it. Not to mention, despite the entire creation of the article spawning from his death, recentism is not an issue here as there is enough cited information about his career to counterweight information about his death. CaptainGalaxy 22:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Captain Galaxy here. The pushback that this has been getting is just bizarre and largely, at least for the latter comments, unfounded. TheSandDoctor Talk 01:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For those who still oppose based on quality, can you provide some issues the article still has? I'm more than willing to work on the article more if that is what is necessary. The discussions regarding synth and unreliable sources have been resolved already and there are no maintenance tags. Link20XX (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No significant tags and over-the-top attention among the MC community (including me).
interstatefive  16:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article is well sourced, no major problems. Yeeno (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not seeing any underlying or obvious quality issues that should discredit this article. With all issues seemingly resolved, I see no problem in posting this now. CaptainGalaxy 17:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I do not see a problem with this article being posted now as its issues seem to be resolved. Good work to all those who have edited to address them. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree. The main issues surrounding the article and being debated seem to have been resolved. Johnson524 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for my usual reason in these cases (with due deference to any friends or relatives); if they weren't notable enough to have an article while they were alive (and therefore would fail the RD rules), dying doesn't push them over the line. And, er, oh yeah - I don't like to mention this, but he's faked his death before (please let this not be the case this time, if you know what I mean). Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Faked his death before? Can you tell me more about this, say by linking to something reliable? A diehard editor (talk | edits) 18:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lack of an article before does not imply notability only related to death. A subject's death, however, may encourage the creation of an article. In this case in specific, there was a "Technoblade" draft already present when the target article was created, it simply lacked enough information to be published. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The sudden ease of source availability (read: front page stuff) and the widespread coverage that this has received would also presumably incentivize participation and work on improving the article, as happens elsewhere on the 'pedia. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is also an admittedly bizarre accusation to make (that this is faked) without any proof as Masem noted further up. That's like an WP:OR version of WP:CRYSTAL, if that's even possible. It isn't one or two RSes that would be being duped right now, but dozens. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember this sentiment regarding Kevin Samuels which didn't have an article in Wikipedia prior to his death - sans faking his death. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment very disturbing to read those curious users who are claiming (using their own original research I assume) that this is a hoax when RS like BBC, CNN, Varsity, Sky News, ABC, Yahoo etc are all reporting this death. Also curious to see some users suggesting we don't post items on the main page in case they attract unwanted attention. This place.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's almost certainly not a hoax, you are right; but let's face it, this is a guy whose full name we dont even know... Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never heard of this guy before, but I looked through the r/technoblade subreddit yesterday, and a few eagle-eyed fans spotted an obituary with his full name that appeared in a local newspaper before his death was officially announced. While obviously not WP:RS, that's enough to make the chances of this being a hoax 0%. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The news is being reported in multiple RS across the world. That his article is new isn't relevant. Plus perhaps those surprised we don't know his real name are from a "certain generation" who aren't used to the idea of people on YouTube operating their entire careers under a pseudonym.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notable, seems to be of ok quality, rest in peace Alex. Diverging Diamond (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - People, respectable people, are claiming this might be a hoax? Seriously? Gosh, why even post any death at all on ITN then, if we are going to apply the same logic that we use for sports retirements. Unbelievable. WaltCip-(talk) 20:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very clearly legitimate:
Some of Tech's closest friends such as Dream have acknowledged the death on Twitter and the hashtag #technobladeneverdies is currently trending on that platform.
On Reddit, multiple threads have been made about his death, such as on r/MinecraftMemes, r/DreamWasTaken, r/HypixelSkyblock, and many other subreddits.
On the server Hypixel, there is a tribute where players can add their signatures, as stated by the server owner himself.[1]
Besides all of this, the article has solid sources, no obviously glaring problems (as far as I'm concerned), and I can definitely see this on the front page considering how much of a ripple this event has caused over the Internet.

References

172.112.210.32 (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I'm shocked this hasn't been posted yet. Sure, article is new, but the guy was part of the most popular Minecraft series on Twitch and he had 10 million subscribers at the time of his death. + #technobladeneverdies and other Technoblade related phrases have been trending on Twitter all day and the BBC, CNN and the NYT all are reporting this. KingOfAllThings (thou shalt chatter!) 00:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article quality has definitely improved, can't see any major issues XxLuckyCxX (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article quality is good, long enough, well cited, and respectful as regards to the subject's family. RIP. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not much to add, I think it's great how quickly the article has improved from nothing to something, and I'm proud of all the editors who've worked so hard on this. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tjahjo Kumolo[edit]

Article: Tjahjo Kumolo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]
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: Sitting Indonesian cabinet minister, five-term parliamentarian. Juxlos (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Notable person in my country, I have heard him in the news from TV for quite a while long before his death. I have checked the sourcing and the article is fine. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable minister and figure. I support his article to be listed on recent death list. ~~~~ Mmnashrullah (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the line "served two terms in the DPR between 1987 and 1997" - needs a cite. Once that's fixed, good to go for RD. I wouldn't support a blurb though. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Yair Lapid becomes Prime Minister of Israel[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Yair Lapid (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Israeli politician Yair Lapid assumes office as the fourteenth Prime Minister of Israel. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The New York Times, Deutsche Welle, The Toronto Star, The Jerusalem Post, Axios
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.

Nominator's comments: He became Prime Minister after the Knesset (Israeli parliament) was dissolved due toa political crisis. He had previously agreed with Naftali Bennett in 2021 that they would both serve as PM for two years. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 01:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure how to handle this. Maybe treat it like an election, where the government has been changed? But, he wasn't elected. Netanyahu was elected, then they ousted him, then Bennett came along and now Lapid's in power. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We essentially already posted this last June. We made Naftali Bennett the target article, but all relevant articles were clear on the wacky terms of this government and who was the alternate prime minister. It's still the 36th session, this is just a tag. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Fine maybe this time I won't put my comment. CR-1-AB (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need a rationale, though, if you actually want to seem supportive. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support New PM along with a dissolution of gov't is pretty news/blurb worthy in my book. Overall state of Lapid's article is pretty good too. I've also replaced the blurb image since its nominated for speedy deletion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Change in head of government is usually always notable. The Kip (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Run-of-the-mill notability, somewhat comparable to Boris Johnson or Xi Jinping (technically). Juxlos (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose on quality four citation needed tags, and a few clarification needed tags. Should hopefully be easy to fix, but would be good to fix them before posting. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Changing heads of government is generally significant. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. I fixed up the four citation-needed tags that were there, otherwise good to go per above consensus and ITN/R.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So much for the "except when that change was already posted as part of a general election" exception. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 30[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Closed) SCOTUS blocks POTUS from implementing measures to halve CO2 emissions by 2030[edit]

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: EPA (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​SCOTUS blocks POTUS from implementing measures to halve CO2 emissions by 2030 (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This SCOTUS ruling means that the World cannot avoid dangerous climate change anymore Count Iblis (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This isnt significant. No article to the story. We dont normally put every small decision the supreme court makes for obvious reasoning Haris920 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose several things wrong here. The case is West Virginia v. EPA which should be the linked article. But the problem is, that wasn't the decision. The court ruled on the major questions doctrine, that the EPA interpreted the part of the Clean Air Act to assume they could have existing power plant reduce emissions by using "outside the fenceline" clearer sources (wind, solar, etc), in addition to emission controls on the plant. Court ruled that congress did not allow them to make plants consider the "outside the fenceline" emissions, but can still regular on emissions controls on the plant. And this was all about a policy long abandoned the Clean Power Plan which never came into effect. The decision does have implications for the EPA to be more effective as well as large questions for other parts of the exec branch and their congressional mandate, but this is nowhere near the landmine that Dobbs was last week, and did not severely hamper the EPA at this point as some though it could have. Masem (t) 20:25, 30 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) RD: Rolando Andaya Jr.[edit]

Article: Rolando Andaya Jr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7] [8]
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: Filipino politician. Longtime member of congress and was a cabinet secretary. Jollibinay (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article looks good. Referenced enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haris920 (talkcontribs) 20:33, 2022 June 30 (UTC)
  • Comment: The "Controversies" subsection contains 1 charge and 2 allegations - just the charge would suffice IMO. Juxlos (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • When the Controversies subsection takes up half of the Career section, perhaps it's an indication that the other half of the Career section needs to be expanded. Maybe it is a little too heavy on the negative stuffs at this time. --PFHLai (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, Jollibinay for the expansion. --PFHLai (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fine, but there is some WP:WEIGHT concerns that should be addressed. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Article is good for a notable person. Alex-h (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Snake Island during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine(Neo-Nazi) [edit]

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: Snake Island during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine(Neo-Nazi) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Russia withdraws from Snake Island, having occupied it since the start of the war (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, AP News, BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, The Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Widely and prominently covered; it has been described as a significant victory for Ukraine(Neo-Nazi) , and as well as having the potential to allow Ukrainian grain exports from Odessa to resume. BilledMammal (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I understand that this is technically covered in ongoing, I feel this does somewhat change the tides or at least a boost for Ukraine(Neo-Nazi) during this invasion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a minor objective in a much wider war, already covered in the ongoing section. We didn't post the recent Ukrainian withdrawal from Sievierodonetsk, so it would be POV to post the Russian withdrawal from Snake Island. Neither is likely to be a decisive victory. Modest Genius talk 15:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Modest Genius, this is a minor part of the much bigger war. We haven't posted many other parts of this war that were similar/possibly more important on ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Although this may be a significant fillip for Ukraine(Neo-Nazi) , if we are not posting Kremenchuk shopping mall attack. I really don't think this should be posted. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This island is of little strategic importance. (Source: Focus (German magazine)) Grimes2 (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeÁ la Kremenchuk, others. – Sca (talk) 22:32, 30 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 29[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: Jim Pappin[edit]

Article: Jim Pappin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NHL.com; Associated Press; Toronto Sun
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) 07:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Good to go. BTW, in general death of a professional athlete, particularly for someone who plays in major American sports, most of the time they get into RD. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Only when there are wikieditors working on these sportsmen's wikibios to get them ready for use on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Woody Williams[edit]

Article: Hershel W. Williams (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [9]
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]
Well he's American and that seems to be the main qualification for pushing for a blurb..... Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Bill of Rights Bill[edit]

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: 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]
  • Oppose per WP:SPECULATION. If they do remove it, and if that removal generates lots of coverage in mainstream media, then and only then should we post this. Way too soon right now, and so I suggest this is closed. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 30 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.

Blurb or ongoing: 2022 Ecuadorian protests[edit]

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]
    Better suited to Ongoing. -- Sca (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see, as I said to The Kip, I was 50/50 on blurb or ongoing. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:45, 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]
    @Mhawk10: I fixed the lead to reflect this with a source. What's wrong with the article? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb per hawk10's points. Posting on ongoing might be considered if the unrest continues, though. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose The protests are well-covered in the media but if the unrest still continues, it will be at a lower level, as CONAIE and Lasso government recently reached a deal. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tuluá prison riot[edit]

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[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Katja Husen[edit]

Article: Katja Husen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): tag24 and others
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: Biologist and politician, died from an accident in a cycling marathon --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Martin Bangemann[edit]

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]

(Posted) RD: Margaret Keane[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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) Fixed up now. --PFHLai (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long enough to qualify (400+ words of prose), with no concerns regarding formatting and the deployment of footnotes, and nothing wrong was found by Earwig, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sam Gilliam[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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]

(Posted) 2022 San Antonio trailer deaths[edit]

Article: 2022 San Antonio trailer deaths (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​At least 53 people die in a human smuggling attempt in San Antonio, Texas, United States. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​At least 53 people are found dead in an abandoned tractor-trailer in San Antonio, Texas, United States.
Alternative blurb II: ​At least 53 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 [10]). 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]
    We didn't include a LGBTQ slur for the Oslo shooting (eg "a shooting occurred at a sex-deviant parade"). Identifying the situation is "human trafficking" which implies questionable means of immigration without deriding those that died is still capturing the story's essence. Masem (t) 12:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fact isn't a slur, and the fact is these were unlawful migrants which is the reason they were dying in that semi-trailer I'm not sure why you're so worked up over this but it's factual and relevant to the story. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:25, 1 July 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]
  • Support It is strange that the death of two people in a terrorist incident against a pride parade is featured, while the death of 53 migrants in a human-trafficking incident is not. What gets peoples' attention, I guess. Article quality is fine. Brycehughes (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the opposes were based on article quality a couple of days ago, when it was no more than a stub, with about 4 lines of text about the incident. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and no. I've been watching. In any case I don't mean to be dramatic, and it's more a casual comment about what gets attention in the encyclopedia as opposed to In the News. Brycehughes (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Muboshgu: Why alt2? Also, thanks for posting!--RockstoneSend me a message! 18:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see a particular preference for one or the other, and I think the fact that these were undocumented migrants is an important part of the story. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Muboshgu: I would suggest using "undocumented migrant" instead of "unlawful migrant", but that's just me. Either way, thanks for posting! First time my proposed blurb has made it to the front page. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 22:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "undocumented" is a euphamism as if they're just pending some paperwork and they'll be all set. These are people who entered the country outside a port of entry, circumvented Title 42 of the United States Code and Remain in Mexico policies. I'm afraid unlawful is both accurate and unambiguous in this case. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It connotes wrongdoing in a way that is inappropriate. Undocumented, or even "unauthorized" is the more appropriate term. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 05:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry what? "Unlawful" is accurate, concise and in this case relevant to the circumstances. All you've produced in rebuttal is not liking it, I'm not sure what to tell you. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kremenchuk shopping mall attack[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Kremenchuk shopping mall attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​A missile strike on a mall in Kremenchuk, Ukraine(Neo-Nazi) , 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(Neo-Nazi) .
News source(s): [11]
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(Neo-Nazi) ." 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(Neo-Nazi) . – 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(Neo-Nazi) . 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]
  • Oppose - 72 casualties is a lot on a typical basis. Tragic, but 72 wouldn't be notable enough for a war that probably killed over 50,000 right now and caused far more casualties than that figure. Cheers, (PenangLion (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC))[reply]
    Estimates vary. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 27[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports


RD: Michael C. Stenger[edit]

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

  • Long enough to qualify (almost 400 words of prose), with no concerns regarding formatting and deployment of footnotes, and Earwig has found no problems, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Marlin Briscoe[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. elijahpepe@wikipedia (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. elijahpepe@wikipedia (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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Sports


RD: Mary Mara[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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]

  • Still a 3-sentence stub at this time, with eligibility running out tomorrow. Please expand this wikibio soon. --PFHLai (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: V. Krishnamurthy[edit]

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[edit]

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. elijahpepe@wikipedia (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[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Ken Knowlton[edit]

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]
    • @Spencer: Time for a re-review? Joofjoof has prosified and referenced the education history. --PFHLai (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • One other thing is that Computer Nude is mentioned in the intro but that phrase isn't mentioned elsewhere; is that the same as Studies in Perception I? Once that's clarified, this should be ready. SpencerT•C 16:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps Nude (Study in Perception) [12]? Not sure if the Roman numeral I should be there. --PFHLai (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC) Okay, the Roman numeral I is included here. Is there a "II"? Or even "III"? --PFHLai (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          It looks like they went up to IV, actually! Joofjoof (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Cool! Thanks for the expansion, Joofjoof. --PFHLai (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long enough to qualify (500+ words of prose), with no concerns regarding formatting and the deployment of footnotes, and Earwig has found nothing wrong, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sievierodonetsk (2022)[edit]

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): [13]
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(Neo-Nazi) 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(Neo-Nazi) , 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(Neo-Nazi) '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[edit]

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]
The police blockade at the location where the shootings took place
  • Support This shooting event incident is very unusual in Norway as the motives are more sensitive than just shooting. I've taken photos of the location after the event, and added in the article. I also propose to add the photo in the blurb. --Stylez995 (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Amakuru. Only two deaths means this event is not significant enough for ITN. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me where WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is, since that's a red link. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indeed, but I'm going by the threshold of what usually does and does not get posted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you remind us of all the mass shootings in Norway that we've recently posted so we can make an objective comparison? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Minimum deaths has always been de facto one of the things many people take into account when evaluating the severity of different tragedies worldwide. It's not a hard-coded rule, but then nor are most of the de facto conventions we apply at ITN. We are scrupulously fair, and deaths in Norway/Scandinavia are not more important than other deaths.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone is saying they're more "important", just that their rarity in such conditions makes them much more "significant" from a newsworthiness perspective. If we reported on mass shootings with two or more killed in the US every time they happened, it'd be one every other day. In Norway, it's one every other decade. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:48, 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[14][15] --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.

References[edit]

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: