In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations (Archives) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Boeing Starliner launch The Boeing Starliner spacecraft conducts its maiden crewed flight (launch pictured), carrying two astronauts to the International Space Station. The CNSA Chang'e 6 completes sampling and takeoff from the far side of the Moon. Claudia Sheinbaum is elected as the president of Mexico. In South Africa's general election, the African National Congress wins the most seats but loses its majority for the first time since the end of apartheid. In association football, the UEFA Champions League concludes with Real Madrid defeating Borussia Dortmund in the men's final and Barcelona defeating Lyon in the women's final. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war timeline Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: John Burnside Alexander Lang Carl Cain Rob Burrow Drew Gordon Lionel Dyck Nominate an article

Yair Lapid becomes Prime Minister of Israel

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 - The evil empire has a new leader CR-1-AB (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

RD: Rolando Andaya Jr.

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 (talk • contribs) 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]

(Closed) Snake Island during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

(Posted) RD: Woody Williams

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]

• Support Good article. Grimes2 (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I added one citation needed tag, but that shouldn't stop this from being posted. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Bill of Rights Bill

Blurb or ongoing: 2022 Ecuadorian protests

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:

• Updated and nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
• Created by MSG17 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Tspier (talk · give credit)

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]

Tuluá prison riot

 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]

RD: Martin Bangemann

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

(Posted) RD: Margaret Keane

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

• Support Good depth of coverage, referenced. Marking ready. Spencer^T•C 04:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article more than good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Dennis Egan

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

RD: Deborah James (journalist)

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

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

(Posted) RD: Sam Gilliam

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

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

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

• Oppose Article needs a lot of ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Pallonji Mistry

 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]

(Ready) 2022 San Antonio trailer deaths

Nominator's comments: This appears to be the deadliest human smuggling incident in American History. -- Rockstone^{Send 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 not a fan of that blurb, honestly. They're people first, non unlawful migrants. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 14:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, is that the law enforcement priority, to determine their legal status rather deal with such a horrific crime scene? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:13, 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 [4]). 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]

• 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]

• Support now article quality issues have been fixed. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a significant event and the article is now of sufficient quality.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kremenchuk shopping mall attack

Article: Kremenchuk shopping mall attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A missile strike on a mall in Kremenchuk, Ukraine, kills 20 people and injures at least 56 more. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ 20 people are killed and 56 are injured after a missile strike on a mall in Kremenchuk, Ukraine.
News source(s): [5]
Credits:

• Nominated by Interstatefive (talk · give credit)
• Created by Oleg Yunakov (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Leaky.Solar (talk · give credit) and Thelisteninghand (talk · give credit)

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

• Support Unfortunately the amount of casualties might be even more... So I'd propose changing the line to "At least 16 people are killed and 56 are injured after a missile strikes a mall in Kremenchuk, Ukraine." With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 01:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose already covered in ongoing. Banedon (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. While the war may be covered in ongoing individual events are still sufficiently significant to post on ITN, and a missile strike that is almost certainly a war crime is one of those events. BilledMammal (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are no wars without alleged war crimes in modern times, and this isn't the biggest alleged war crime during the invasion so far. After all, the purpose of the ongoing item is exactly to cover such events.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose already covered in ongoing. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Official death toll now 18. These were civilians in a shopping mall. No possible military target anywhere near. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Official death toll now 20. 40 still missing. The Russians say the missile "landed nearby" and that the shopping mall was "empty". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Latest reports say 36 are still missing. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The US, UK and 18 other countries invaded Iraq in 2003 behind some make believe and somehow there weren't daily "war crimes" so lets just put that hyperbole in a box. This attack is strategically worthless and sufficiently covered by being posted in Ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Covered by ongoing. This is by far not the worst civilian incident in the war. --Masem (t) 12:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per Simeonovski, Masem. Horrific and typically abominable, but not a game-changer in the context of the savage, unprovoked Russian war on Ukraine. – Sca (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, covered by ongoing. Alex-h (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose despite contributing to this article, I feel it is not more significant than other strikes on civilians in Ukraine. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although this is covered by on-going, it is being singled out by world leader like Emanuel Macron as a 'war crime'; it is also a new axis for the Russian invasion towards Zaporizhzhia after the Fall of Severodonetsk in the east last week. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What constitutes a war crime is not made by the determination of a world leader. There's international courts for this. --Masem (t) 23:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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]

RD: Michael C. Stenger

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

(Posted) RD: Marlin Briscoe

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

• Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Graham Skidmore

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]

• Comment have added some sources, to me it looks fine (only 1 cn tag remaining). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have dealt with that tag. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks ready now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks ok. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Lead could be expanded but looks good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Now expanded. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Good work! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2022 Missouri train derailment

Aqaba port chlorine leak

 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

Russian government defaults

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]

RD: Mary Mara

 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

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

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:

• Nominated by PCN02WPS (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Deadman137 (talk · give credit) and Conyo14 (talk · give credit)

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

RD: Jerzy Kopa

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

RD: V. Krishnamurthy

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

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]

RD: Ken Knowlton

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. Spencer^T•C 14:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sievierodonetsk (2022)

(Posted) 2022 Oslo shootings

non-admin closure, consensus unlikely to change

Preceding posted by User:Floydian

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:

• Nominated by Ixtal (talk · give credit)
• Created by Koiramainen (talk · give credit)
• Updated by ArcticSeeress (talk · give credit) and Geirnestor (talk · give credit)

 — 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]

• 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[7][8] --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? -- Rockstone^{Send 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. -- Rockstone^{Send 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.