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.

Justices of the US Supreme Court in 2021
US Supreme Court justices

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]

June 25[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Politics and elections


June 24[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


When making new nominations, please ... use a level 4 heading (====)

use the

Article: No article specified
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)

template

ITN candidate syntax for copy & paste for new blurb nominations ITN candidate syntax for copy & paste for new Recent Death nominations

RD: Harry Gration[edit]

Article: Harry Gration (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

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

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

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

June 23[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


Grenadian general election[edit]

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

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

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

  • Procedural Support for a bluetagged recurring event and congratulations to Dickon Amiss Thomas Mitchell for not only rising to lead a nation after eight months in politics, but for proudly bearing one of the funniest names in the game. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Yuri Shatunov[edit]

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

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

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

  • Support, Article is good for RD. Alex-h (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article is orange and yellow-tagged. Far from ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thiomargarita magnifica[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

(Posted) RD: Hugh McElhenny[edit]

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

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

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

(Closed) US SCOTUS on gun rights[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: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In a 6–3 ruling, the United States Supreme Court rules that gun possession in public is a constitutional right under the Second Amendment. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I know thus will trigger several comments being local politics only, but I think we are all aware of the problem with gun control in the US as a implicit long stand aspect (we only post the most serious parts). This ruling undoes a 110 yr law and makes it harder for states to deny gun ownership, which is excepted to exasperate the gun violence issue. I know there is a mess of other common ITNC complaints that could come up, so I can only convince posting this so far. I will add that within the week (perhaps tomorrow) we will know about the abortion case where if the leaked decision holds, roe v. Wade would be overturned, and that is likely a more groundbreaking case. Masem (t) 18:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am no legal expert, but this is not only something that just effects the US, but also would only effect certain states/municipalities that have certain restrictions on gun ownership. That, coupled without a knowable and quantifiable impact on gun violence in the US, makes this an oppose in my mind. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In general while the immediate effect is for only about 8 states, the decision defines gun possession in public places as a protected right. This as the court is also about to rule abortion is no longer one (it that leak holds). That is what makes the ruling significant. Masem (t) 19:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose only because of the outcome. I'd have supported it hands down had the conclusion been the opposite. Now it's crystal clear that the resolution of the mass-shooting problem in the US should be sought in the sanity of those wielding guns.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not a dramatic ruling with drastic implications. New York state will just have to rewrite its law. Thriley (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's wait to see what else they gut. They effectively overturned Miranda too. —Cryptic 19:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No just that an officer that violates your minrada rights can't be civilly sued for that. But the criminal court implications still hold Masem (t) 19:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Moderately narrow ruling on the "proper cause" requirement for CCW. Notable in politics and US, but not that big overall. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes, DarkSide830, this only affects (sic) the US. Please see Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Please_do_not..., which includes oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive. Kiril, your comment is complete nonsense to me. This is a major change in this country that will worsen one of our biggest ongoing problems. It's covered in the news majorly. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Muboshgu: I’ve always had the hope that, on a good day, authorities would impose stricter gun control, which would be the right news to post and something that regularly appears in my comments on individual shooting incidents. And now we have exactly the opposite. I don’t wanna think and can’t imagine that it can get any worse.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware of the policy, yes, but if it affects only, say, eight states, then the event in question has to be fairly impactful, in my mind, to rise to the level of ITN inclusion. An event like an election or natural disaster may impact only a portion of the world, but these events have a clearer and likely larger impact on the regions in question. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Almost nothing will change. Surprise! Now I'm off to see my shrink, Dr. Pangloss. – Sca (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's time for closure as there's no need to discuss this shame any further.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- this is big news, but it will be overshadowed if SCOTUS overturns Roe in Dobbs, and I think that's far more important to be blurbed. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose…and?? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The seven states and DC who have the "proper cause" laws include heavily populated ones like California and New Jersey - there's going to be a lot more people walking around with concealed weapons. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose New_York_State_Rifle_&_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen#Impact is pretty underwhelming in terms of describing the impact from this ruling. SpencerT•C 02:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a big change for the c. 30 million Americans who live in de facto no-issue jurisdictions and the c. 30 million Americans who live in de facto may-issue ones. Now everyone will live in either a shall-issue place or one where licensing isn't required at all to legally carry. On the other hand in New York City touching or having a gun is so illegal it's punished way worse than intending to reverse a shift of the gun in your pants and accidentally pulling the trigger in a dance club, which is only misdemeanor reckless endangerment. An American football star once spent 2009-11 in prison for that (the mayor wanted him to get the 3.5+ years regular people would've gotten for simple possession, the only thing shot was himself). Shall-issue has probably never been tried at such high population densities, metro area populations and low levels of gun culture before, anywhere in the 1st world (at least since too long ago to assume whatever happened will repeat, so this is essentially the world's first experiment on what happens if a modern 1st world city of 24 million suddenly goes from no-issue to shall-issue, in a place with no gun culture. The highest population density parts of USA were no-issue till today, some rich, some poor enough for gang gun battles, some in between, will the rate of non-criminals being robbed or shot accidentally or on purpose dramatically change? New York City has neighborhoods up to ~160,000 people per square mile, not far behind Hong Kong (the Mong Kok district of Kowloon Peninsula 340,000/mi²). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Good Faith SMW and Masem make some fine points above, but I can't imagine getting even half of them across in a sufficiently terse blurb. Not so much the thing itself here as its past and future associations altogether. The time to blurb the abortion story has passed (though may return) and the next American mass public shooting nom is (apparently?) sooner than ever now; if either or both are linked to this decision in the news, we could combine them. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nothing has changed, if the outcome had been the opposite, I imagine this would have way more news coverage, as it would have been way more significant and ITN-worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate, in a rare outbreak of bipartisanship, has passed a law that would tighten controls on the sale and possession of firearms, and passage by the House and enactment seem assured. [3] [4] [5]Sca (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In other news, a 17-year-old now stands accused in yet two more "Waco shooting incidents", despite Texas laws already in effect to prevent someone that young from packing a pistol in the first place. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Mahmut Ustaosmanoğlu[edit]

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

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

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

June 22[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Bruton Smith[edit]

Article: Bruton Smith (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Charlotte Observer
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: Founder of Speedway Motorsports, the second-largest owner of NASCAR venues. rawmustard (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Tony Siragusa[edit]

Article: Tony Siragusa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN, Official NFL twitter
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: NFL defensive tackle. 55. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose multiple citation needed and better source needed tags. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have added refs so there is only one citation needed tag now. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jaylon Ferguson[edit]

Article: Jaylon Ferguson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN, CBS Baltimore, WBAL-TV, National Football League
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.

 — MarkH21talk 12:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Short, sourced and tragic. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose what did he do between November 2020 and now- presumably he didn't play for the Ravens in the 2021 season, but in that case, it should at least be mentioned. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He actually did play in 10 games for the Ravens last year, and was on the roster at the time of his death. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the 2021 season info should definitely be included in the "Professional career" section. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per InedibleHulk, though more info about his professional life besides his death could be included. interstatefive  15:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Would like to see some expansion. But what's there is adequate and decently referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Whilst I would love to see additional prose (as per other editors), this wikibio is ultimately good enough for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake[edit]

Article: June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A 6.2 magnitude earthquake killed at least 255 and injured 250 people in Afghanistan. (Post)
News source(s): CNN The Guardian Reuters BBC Al Jazeera
Credits:

 Ainty Painty (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – Hundreds of fatalities, major disaster for the area. --Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A major disaster and the article looks good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Referenced, looks good to post Sherenk1 (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question the first line of the lead says An earthquake measuring moment magnitude (Mw ) 6.2 struck Afghanistan and Pakistan but then Pakistan is not mentioned anywhere else. Did it affect Pakistan too, and if so, can some mention/coverage of that be added? Joseph2302 (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It struck on the border between both countries but so far there's no news of damage or casualties in Pakistan. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 08:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And you can find it mentioned in the last sentence of the lead and the last sentence of the "Emergency response" section.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying, I also support posting this then. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clearly notable earthquake they should post in ITN. HurricaneEdgar 08:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - May the poster also update the death toll per article when posting. Figure is now 950. --Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 09:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The death/injured numbers appear to be going up fast as reports come in. A reminder of why we typically use "at least" in these blurbs so that we don't have to be exact to the minute. --Masem (t) 12:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ERRORS is the right place for requesting such incremental updates, and it seems to be very well functioning with regards to this earthquake.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although the blurb isn't an error, because it is "more than 1,000". Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 21[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

  • 2022 food crises
    • Egypt rejects two World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements which would have forced it to export domestically needed food to alleviate the global food crisis, citing proposals that it considers harmful to developing countries and also noting that 30 other WTO member states restrict food exports. (Al Monitor)
  • The armed forces of Ecuador say that they will "not allow ongoing protests" to "damage the country's democracy", as road blockades and demonstrations against the economic policies of president Guillermo Lasso continue. (Reuters)

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Caleb Swanigan[edit]

Article: Caleb Swanigan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fox59
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced. Its also a GA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose A few citation tags to resolve.—Bagumba (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose on quality GA in 2017, but a lot of things added that aren't cited - not least the statistics. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tags resolved. (Probably not still the GA it claims to be, but that's for another forum).—Bagumba (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good enough for RD, even if the GA is questionable. Articles don't need to be GA standard to be posted on RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per other editors. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 20[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Paul M. Ellwood Jr.[edit]

Article: Paul M. Ellwood Jr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, WaPo
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: Father of the HMOs in the USA. PFHLai (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kurt Equiluz[edit]

Article: Kurt Equiluz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Wiener Zeitung (in German)
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: Tenor, at the Vienna State Opera for more than three decades, but remembered more as Harnoncourt's Evangelist in the first recording of Bach's St John Passion on period instruments, the first of many, of that piece and others. I wrote the article in 2010, but had to change all refs. Some reviews added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Regimantas Adomaitis[edit]

Article: Regimantas Adomaitis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): topnews
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: Famous actor. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Colin Grainger[edit]

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

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

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced. Its also a GA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support article looks so good! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support GA and updated with death date, no further details look to have been given about a cause of death. Marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • PostedBagumba (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 19[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Clela Rorex[edit]

Article: Clela Rorex (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Article needs a check up with its sources, plus its tagged. Support Article looks good now, a second opinion might be needed to make sure everything is in order. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could not disagree more with the addition of those tags. Westword and Boulder Magazine are likely too local to have been considered by RSP but there is no issue with them. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    TDKR Chicago 101, I removed Daily Kos and Out Boulder. I removed the tags from the reliable sources and the unneeded full citations tag.[6] – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks alright to me. Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Uffe Ellemann-Jensen[edit]

Article: Uffe Ellemann-Jensen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington 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.

 —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) (ˈ[d̥͡soːg̊ʰ][ˈg̊ʰɒ̹nd̥͡sɹ̠ɪb̥s]) 10:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Orange tag seeking more sources is appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many footnote-free paragraphs. Bibliography mostly unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Colombian presidential election[edit]

Article: 2022 Colombian presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Gustavo Petro wins the Colombian presidential election, defeating Rodolfo Hernández Suárez in the second round (Post)
Alternative blurb: Gustavo Petro is elected President of Colombia.
Alternative blurb II: Gustavo Petro becomes the first leftist ever to be elected President of Colombia
News source(s): The New York Times Le Monde
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Election called, Petro won, significant as he is the first leftist president from Colombia. BastianMAT (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

plus Posted. El_C 08:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) French legislative election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2022 French legislative election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Ensemble, the alliance of incumbent president Emmanuel Macron (pictured), loses its majority in the French legislative election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Ensemble, an alliance led by assembly president Richard Ferrand (pictured), wins the most seats but loses its majority in the French legislative election.
Alternative blurb II: Ensemble, the alliance of incumbent president Emmanuel Macron (pictured), wins in the French legislative election but loses its majority.
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Confirmed, result is a hung parliament and Macron’s alliance has lost its absolute majority. Interesting situation. BastianMAT (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Covered by the general election clause of ITN/R, and yes, somewhat interesting relative to other legislative situational news. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added Altblurb The altimage will have to be imagined for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unusual to point out who loses- we usually point out who wins. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • They technically won, they have the most control of Parilement, but they cannot vote as a majority due to how the numbers work out, making it a hung parliament. I would suggest the blurb reflect this better because I agree it makes it sound like they lost 100%. --Masem (t) 23:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) Perhaps Ensemble, the alliance of incumbent president Emmanuel Macron (pictured), wins a plurality in the French legislative election but loses its majority.? BilledMammal (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I vaguely remember "plurality" confusing and bothering some people, so went with "the most seats" in the leader's version, but might reconsider. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't mind which we use. However, I prefer we use the Macron's version, as his role in the election is more significant than Ferrand's. BilledMammal (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't really know French parliamentary power. Just seems the alliance and main party's leader beats the overall country's, in this context. I'll defer to anyone learned. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do readily concede that foreign audiences better recognize Macron as the representative face of all things France and that the English Wikipedia rightfully serves a foreign audience, much like our news does. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • After realizing Ferrand lost his seat, I've withdrawn the alt. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is in good shape. I see that the Alt has been withdrawn. Macron has won, however governing France will be difficult in the coming years. KittenKlub (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article looks good, and ALT0 is appropriate, as it matches the main focus of mainstream media on this election, which is that it'll be harder for Macron now he doesn't have a majority. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and added Altblurb2. We shouldn't be painting it as a loss, they can still form a coalition and did technically win. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
plus Posted. El_C 08:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @El C:, is it fine if I can get the nom cred for this and the Colombian election, trying to collect them on my profile, hope it is not too big of a request. Cheers. BastianMAT (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. El_C 17:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 18[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(new) RD: Hans-Dieter Bader[edit]

Article: Hans-Dieter Bader (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): HAZ
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: The tenor - and gifted allround - of Staatsoper Hannover over decades. I wrote the article in 2016, added a bit. Sorry, I noticed this only now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gimbi massacre[edit]

Article: Gimbi massacre (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In Gimbi County, Ethiopia, over 200 Amhara civilians are murdered by the Oromo Liberation Army, as part of the ongoing Oromo conflict. (Post)
News source(s): NY Times, Guardian
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Massacre of 200 to 350 people; biggest mass killing of the war since Axum massacre (Nov-Dec 2020). Sheila1988 (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- I thought no one noticed (also hadn't had the time). This is one of two or three major things this week seemingly with no article (Asian floods in S Asia & China). Bokoharamwatch (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dave Wickersham[edit]

Article: Dave Wickersham (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Kansas City Star; WDAF-TV
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) 01:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lennie Rosenbluth[edit]

Article: Lennie Rosenbluth (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; North Carolina Tar Heels; Sports Illustrated
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) 19:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Aleksei Parshin[edit]

Article: Aleksei Parshin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Steklov Institute of Mathematics, Steklov Institute of Mathematics obituary, Academia Europaea
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: Notable mathematician — MarkH21talk 11:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Do either of the sources for his recent death give anything beyond the date? If so, even a place would help. If not, no worries, not a dealbreaker. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @InedibleHulk: Based on a quick run through Google Translate, it's not in these two sources. Perhaps more details on his death will be given in later obituaries, perhaps not. The article as-is should be good to go for ITN RD though. — MarkH21talk 12:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article looks to be in sufficiently good shape. XOR'easter (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mark Shields[edit]

Article: Mark Shields (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY 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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Well-known commentator, not always PC, but could be very funny. Article looks fine. RIP. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clean start article which is well referenced. KittenKlub (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No details for the latter half of a 60 year career. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    His career at PBS and CNN is covered, what more detail are you seeking? Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Shields was a regular political commentator on the PBS NewsHour from 1988 to 2020." One sentence covering 32 years of his career. Followed by two sentences about his leaving. Didn't anything noteworthy happen in that time? GreatCaesarsGhost 23:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, he was a hack. Abductive (reasoning) 03:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark Shields was nowledgeable and respected – and often entertaining. He'll be missed by millions. – Sca (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Damian Casey[edit]

Article: Damian Casey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Independent
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.

 Gaois (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stats table needs referenced. Otherwise, GTG. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have removed the stats table as apart from being unsourced, it was also 12 games out of date. His total stats in the infobox are sourced. Support now. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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: