Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/June 2022

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form; any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

(Posted) RD: Willie Morrow

 * Comment Morrow's company and barbershop were located on Market Street in San Diego from the 1960s through 1990s isn't cited. This article is almost ready to go though. MarioJump83 (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Great! MarioJump83 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support I think the issues are resolved, and it is now good to go. MarioJump83 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) SCOTUS blocks POTUS from implementing measures to cut CO2 emissions

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


 * Oppose and close this is truly exhausting. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rolando Andaya Jr.

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks, for the expansion. --PFHLai (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Fine, but there is some WP:WEIGHT concerns that should be addressed. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good for a notable person. Alex-h (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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

 * Support While I understand that this is technically covered in ongoing, I feel this does somewhat change the tides or at least a boost for Ukraine during this invasion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a minor objective in a much wider war, already covered in the ongoing section. We didn't post the recent Ukrainian withdrawal from Sievierodonetsk, so it would be POV to post the Russian withdrawal from Snake Island. Neither is likely to be a decisive victory. Modest Genius talk 15:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Modest Genius, this is a minor part of the much bigger war. We haven't posted many other parts of this war that were similar/possibly more important on ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although this may be a significant fillip for Ukraine, if we are not posting Kremenchuk shopping mall attack. I really don't think this should be posted. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This island is of little strategic importance. (Source: Focus (German magazine)) Grimes2 (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose –  Á la Kremenchuk, others. – Sca (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Pappin

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

(Posted) RD: Woody Williams

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


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

(Closed) Bill of Rights Bill

 * Oppose posting "proposed removals" of anything. Mere proposals have no impact. This is just inside baseball of UK politics. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close “proposed removal” means nothing for ITNR. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What is this? What does this even mean? What's the context? Why should ITN care?--WaltCip- (talk)  18:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN blurbs aren't in headlinese, and even headlinese usually has a predicate. What happened to prompt a blurb proposal?  The most significant recent update to this story seems to be the bill's introduction, and that happened a full week ago. —Cryptic 18:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, not yet This actually is a big deal (for USians, think "repeal of the 2nd amendment" or something similar), but it would only be ITN-worthy if and when it actually happens. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait/Oppose It should get posted if/when it's actually repealed, but this isn't that. The Kip (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose until such time that it actually becomes law, if it ever does. People propose repealing things in the US Constitution all the time (seriously, there's always a bill that gets proposed in the House and goes nowhere). No different with the UK, from what I can tell. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, other than we don't have a constitution, let alone the nonsense and continually reinterpreted "amendments" to one. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, from my understanding (and I'm not an expert), the UK has an unwritten constitution that is formed from a combination of judicial precedent and certain acts of Parliament. The US constitution consists of the actual written constitution and the court's interpretation of our written constitution becomes binding precedent, and therefore part of constitutional law. Our judicial systems are very similar since we both use common law (which I am glad about -- thanks for giving us that!). -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The 1992 amendment did nothing but delay pay raises that legislators give themselves till the next election, another did nothing but let 18.0-21.0 year olds vote and another did nothing but repeal the amendment that made alcoholic beverages illegal nationwide. Another did nothing but allow women to vote. None of those ever had disputed interpretation and I think we agree those were good amendments (also some others like the amendment that banned slavery and the one that made ex-slaves citizens) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SPECULATION. If they do remove it, and if that removal generates lots of coverage in mainstream media, then and only then should we post this. Way too soon right now, and so I suggest this is closed. Joseph<b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Blurb or ongoing: 2022 Ecuadorian protests

 * Comment Would this perhaps be better-suited for ongoing? The Kip (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * support blurb. Bedivere (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Political unrest without tangible consequences, so far, doesn't rise to ITN-blurb significance, IMO. – Sca (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * No. of fatalities? -- Sca (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So everything I mentioned should be disregarded because it only had 5 deaths? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Better suited to Ongoing. -- Sca (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Comment: The leaders of the protests reached an agreement with the Lasso government, calling off the strike and starting a negotiation process. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The protests are well-covered in the media but if the unrest still continues, it will be at a lower level, as CONAIE and Lasso government recently reached a deal. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Tuluá prison riot

 * Oppose as a one line stub. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oppose on quality Literally just a one sentence article. Should be expanded. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, once the article has been expanded. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been expanded and is not a stub anymore. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, stub of all stubs. The Kip (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless someone can tell me why this is notable beyond an arbitrary death toll. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Support now that the article has been expanded. Somewhereattheendofspace (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Now it's good to go. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Does not meet minimum requirement of "three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs" given multiple 2-sentence paragraphs.  Spencer T• C 18:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Katja Husen

 * Support Sourced. OK. Biking is dangerous. Grimes2 (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martin Bangemann

 * Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margaret Keane

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

RD: Dennis Egan

 * Comment The Electoral history section is incomplete and could reflect his most recent elections. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Electoral history section is still incomplete. Elections in the 21st century are missing. In the prose, the first two paragraphs both started with "In April 2009,..." and probably should be written as one paragraph. More info on what he did while in the state senate would be good. --PFHLai (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Enlargement of NATO

 * Oppose here we go again. How many times do we have to insist that what we all consider ITNR is the formal admission? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't consider it to fit neatly within the Russo-Ukrainian war unless NATO is a belligerent in that war. And I don't really see a good reason for that. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - minor development. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Let’s wait until they officially join and post it then as we did with other countries in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just another small step; and hardly an unexpected one. Nfitz (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Rather more than a small step, as Turkey was the main opponent. The way to membership looks clear. But waiting for the done deal does seem prudent. -- Sca (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't the invitation the most noteworthy event? Formal admission is like posting the inauguration rather than the election.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The NATO members still have to unanimously vote them in, and it's possible they won't all vote yes. At the election point, that's when I'd say it's sensible to post to ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Given that this seemed to be the only limiting factor for joining NATO for these countries, we can wait for the confirmation. --M asem (t) 23:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and let's stop with these noms until membership is confirmed. Everything else is just a hurdle to overcome. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until the Accession Protocol is signed which, as far as I know, may happen in the next few days. After that we could nominate the treaty coming into force or full membership. Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose wait until if/when they actually join NATO. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Deborah James (journalist)

 * Intro should be highlights or summaries, and anything in the intro should be elaborated upon in the main body of the article. Detailed about her cancer funds currently in the intro should be moved to the main body of the wikibio and supported by footnotes and REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC) I have moved that out of the intro. Please add REFs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Fixed up now. --PFHLai (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Long enough to qualify (400+ words of prose), with no concerns regarding formatting and the deployment of footnotes, and nothing wrong was found by Earwig, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 08:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sam Gilliam

 * 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)
 * Went ahead and fixed those issues. (Not sure if updaters are supposed to chime in here) 19h00s (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and yes, nice to chime in and let editors know noted issues have been addressed.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: Nick Nemeroff

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Oppose In its current form, the target article isn't worthy of homepage exposure.  Schwede 66  00:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is basically a stub. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Still a stub at 180 words of prose. Further expansion and de-stubbing are needed to qualify this wikibio for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

RD: Cüneyt Arkın

 * Oppose Article needs a lot of ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Footnotes can only be found in the intro and the Personal life section, whereas the Career section has zero footnotes. The Awards and Filmography sections are also unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Still needs more inline citations. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

RD: Pallonji Mistry

 * 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)
 * There seems to be so much details on his wealth in the intro, and the Career section has disappointingly so little on what he did to achieve this or what he has done with the accumulated wealth. Please expand and/or re-distribute the materials in this wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC) I have moved some of the details of his business career out of the intro and into the Career section. Please add more details and REFs to the Career section. --PFHLai (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Still needs more inline citations – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 San Antonio trailer deaths

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Oppose on quality, support on notability. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment add altblurb2 --LaserLegs (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 ). But it's better to avoid both sides of the political argument by using neutral language.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly it's an horrible blurb. I suggest taking it off altogether. Otherwise, support. Bedivere (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. M asem (t) 12:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A fact isn't a slur, and the fact is these were unlawful migrants which is the reason they were dying in that semi-trailer I'm not sure why you're so worked up over this but it's factual and relevant to the story. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Support on notability. Alex-h (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Support on both quality and notability, the article is no longer a stub. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support As per above, leaning against ALT2 due to concerns about wording that were raised prior. Ornithoptera (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Support now article quality issues have been fixed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is a significant event and the article is now of sufficient quality.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Can someone please post this now? Seems like there is consensus. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging, for help please? UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted ALT2 – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why alt2? Also, thanks for posting!-- Rockstone Send me a message!  18:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't see a particular preference for one or the other, and I think the fact that these were undocumented migrants is an important part of the story. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest using "undocumented migrant" instead of "unlawful migrant", but that's just me. Either way, thanks for posting! First time my proposed blurb has made it to the front page. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "undocumented" is a euphamism as if they're just pending some paperwork and they'll be all set. These are people who entered the country outside a port of entry, circumvented Title 42 of the United States Code and Remain in Mexico policies. I'm afraid unlawful is both accurate and unambiguous in this case. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It connotes wrongdoing in a way that is inappropriate. Undocumented, or even "unauthorized" is the more appropriate term. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry what? "Unlawful" is accurate, concise and in this case relevant to the circumstances. All you've produced in rebuttal is not liking it, I'm not sure what to tell you. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * . "Unlawful" is synonymous with "illegal", which is questionable since they haven't been proven illegal yet. M asem (t) 14:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * : "Martinez, 28, is charged with one count of conspiracy to transport illegal aliens resulting in death.". You can keep posting social justice hysteria if you want, but the operator of the vehicle has been charged with "conspiracy to transport illegal aliens". Illegal. In fact, we should update the blurb to reflect what the federal charges say they were: illegal aliens. Y'all think that's sound reasoning? --LaserLegs (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're also conveying legitimacy to US laws that restrict migration for explicitly and intentionally racist purposes. Agree we should not use the euphemism "undocumented" but by the same token we should not use dysphemism either.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm conveying legitimacy to US immigration laws passed legitimately by representatives elected in legitimate elections. Not liking a law isn't the same as it being invalid. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Kremenchuk shopping mall attack

 * 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, <font face="Segoe Script">Oleg. Y. (talk). 01:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose already covered in ongoing. Banedon (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Oppose already covered in ongoing. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Latest reports say 36 are still missing. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Were the lives of those 18 Ukrainians also worthless? Putin is now re-balancing the wrongs of the 2003 invasion of Iraq in some way? The history of this page goes back only to 5 February 2005, so not easy to see how Wikipedia was reflecting the news at that time. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Will posting this to ITN bring them back? Will it hasten the end of the invasion? Will the naked hypocrisy of the most egregious war crimes offenders of the last 60 years complaining about Russia ever stop? The answer to all three is: no. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Covered by ongoing. This is by far not the worst civilian incident in the war. --M asem (t) 12:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oppose, covered by ongoing. Alex-h (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * What constitutes a war crime is not made by the determination of a world leader. There's international courts for this. --M asem (t) 23:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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))
 * Estimates vary. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: Colin Blakemore

 * Oppose as citations are still needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment have added a few sources (from general media), but still two {cn} tags remain. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael C. Stenger

 * Long enough to qualify (almost 400 words of prose), with no concerns regarding formatting and deployment of footnotes, and Earwig has found no problems, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marlin Briscoe

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

(Posted) RD: Graham Skidmore

 * Comment Date of death was 26 December 2021. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Telegraph says 26th? So I assume that's what WalesOnline meant also. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. (Torygraph is behind a paywall for me.) Although, Sky News says 27th. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Can confirm that Telegraph says "Boxing Day 2021" (which is 26 December). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment have added some sources, to me it looks fine (only 1 cn tag remaining). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have dealt with that tag. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ok. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support Lead could be expanded but looks good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Now expanded. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Good work! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Missouri train derailment

 * Wait -- Train derailments, especially derailments resulting in deaths, are rare, but I'm not sure we normally post these when they result in few deaths. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There have been three derailments with a higher body count this month. I think we would need some (not yet evident) exceptional circumstances to post this.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX. This event has resulted in exceptionally notable coverage compared to other derailment incidents (from my POV), with the incident being front-page news on CNN, NBC, NPR, among other news orgs. Upon reconsideration, I do recommend waiting to see if the death toll rises and perhaps the page views can give an estimate as to whether or not it's ITN-worthy, but unless it kills 500 people, death tolls should not matter here. <span style="font-family:

monospace;">elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * When it involves commercial passenger trains (this was an Amtrak train), we usually are going to post any incident where there is a death and injury toll. M asem (t) 03:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support It's front page news on a lot of media outlets. I don't understand why people are using death count's as a metric, we should just be using coverage from RS's as a metric. Sea Cow (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not on the front page of any non-US news websites so far as I can see. BBC UK for example has this other American story instead. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, lacks significance. In addition, we don't normally post these - as GreatCaesarsGhost points out there have been several others this month alone that we didn't post. BilledMammal (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If they are not nominated, we can't post them M asem (t) 03:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at ones that have recently been nominated, we didn't post most of them: In_the_news/Candidates/February_2020, In_the_news/Candidates/August_2020, In_the_news/Candidates/March_2020, In_the_news/Candidates/September_2021, and In_the_news/Candidates/October_2021. The only one we did post was In_the_news/Candidates/April_2021. BilledMammal (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * one in pakistan was posted last year as well. the one in hualien was significant because the derailment caused the express train to crash into a tunnel.  the one in pakistan was significant because another train crashed into the derailed train.  dying (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only three deaths; lacks significance Chrisclear (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb doesn't state the country in which this event took place. Chrisclear (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The blurb says "Missouri"... -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Many readers don't know which country that's in. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose minor event. Banedon (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunate for the victims but it's just an ordinary train disaster not very different from the Garmisch-Partenkirchen train derailment earlier this month.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it's nowhere near important enough. The 2021 Hualien train derailment had a death toll of 49 & the 2021 Ghotki train crash had a death toll of 65. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The stubbish size doesn't offset its significance to meet WP:ITNCRIT.—Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per the numerous examples of train derailments with small fatality numbers not being posted, just because this is in the US, we shouldn't post give it special treatment. Article is also a junk stub too- there's more text explaining where the place is than on the actual incident itself. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Not a big disaster. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Aqaba port chlorine leak

 * 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)
 * Oppose on quality, article is way too short, needs expansion which can happen with time. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose no need to rush to post before its ready. "Minimally sufficient" is half right.   GreatCaesarsGhost   21:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing opposition due to expansion, still a "meh" overall. It's certainly a unique enough story.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Fairly wide coverage, now putting toll at 13 or more. – Sca (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've expanded to a smidge under 500 (486 words). --M asem (t) 04:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose disaster stub and not really significant in any way --LaserLegs (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article can be expanded a little more, but should be good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed the death toll in the blurb to thirteen, as reported in this Roya News article. Al Jazeera also reported 13 deaths, even though its URL says ten. --PFHLai (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Lemon v. Kurtzman overturned

 * Oppose mostly under the same principle as I opposed NYSRPA vs. Bruen. It's hard to necessarily determine the level of impact that this will have. I think there's reason to believe that the end of Lemon would on it's own be particularly impactful. I understand I'm citing an argument from the Ninth Circuit rather than the majority opinion, but this simply may just be changing the standard of separation of church and state from a Lemon standard to one more based off Tinker. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Dobbs was the highlight of the SCOTUS term, this decision in Kennedy wasn't a surprise reading the tea leaves, and further, several prior cases suggested the Lemon test was already disfavored. --M asem (t) 02:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it doesn't explicitly overturn Lemon, anyway. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  02:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose is not a landmark decision, it has had no national impact, much less international. Don't get too excited; just because we have included the SCOTUS decision on abortion does not mean that all decisions should be included, as its impact and international interest is minimal. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't need an item every time a local court makes a ruling. With a big change of philosophy in the judiciary in that country, there's going to be many more rulings in the next few years. Nfitz (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose not important enough to be ITN-worthy. Local news that's not a landmark decision. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Russian government defaults

 * Support, we may also mention at the end: "... for the first time since 1918." (to highlight significance of the event). Source. With regards, <font face="Segoe Script">Oleg. Y. (talk). 01:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose already covered in ongoing. Banedon (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose not only covered by ongoing, but a country's gov't default on bonds is not an unusual occurence. See South Korea. --M asem (t) 04:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oppose per . They only defaulted on a technicality (they could pay in dollars due to sanctions). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Mara

 * 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)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

RD: Arnold Skolnick

 * 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)
 * The first section has one footnote and all subsequent sections have zero footnotes. The 10+ bullet-points under "Gallery exhibitions" are all unsourced. The whole article currently has only 307 words or prose -- is there anything more to write about the subject? The third and fourth sections have only one or two sentences each. Please expand this wikibio and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Stanley Cup Finals

 * 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)
 * 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? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering Avalanche is singular, I’d assume grammatically it’d be “defeat.” The Kip (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Avalanche is plural here, but yes, you conclude correctly. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ITNR item, article looks good. The Kip (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oppose on quality cn tags must be fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well sourced, at least for a sports article. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)

(Closed) Ole Miss wins the 2022 College World Series

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

RD: Jerzy Kopa

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

RD: V. Krishnamurthy

 * Looks like a lot of the materials are already in place, but they need to be prosified. --PFHLai (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Enyobeni Tavern deaths

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Wait It's definitely intriguing, so far... InedibleHulk (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support when ready. -- Vaulter  17:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support it's sourced and no longer a stub now. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oppose on quality, article is still a stub. Will change vote once expanded. The Kip (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. Pika voom  Talk 13:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Only of teenagers, some say. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. Pika voom  Talk 13:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck 'mainly.' -- Sca (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. --M asem (t) 13:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. Pika voom  Talk 13:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Support on nobility, article would do better with information about the cause of death. Alex-h (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Going with "at least 21" per the article and MOS:NUMERAL – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ken Knowlton

 * Comment: Education history should be converted to prose and referenced.  Spencer T• C 14:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Time for a re-review? has prosified and referenced the education history. --PFHLai (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * One other thing is that Computer Nude is mentioned in the intro but that phrase isn't mentioned elsewhere; is that the same as Studies in Perception I? Once that's clarified, this should be ready.  Spencer T• C 16:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Nude (Study in Perception) ? Not sure if the Roman numeral I should be there. --PFHLai (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC) Okay, the Roman numeral I is included here. Is there a "II"? Or even "III"? --PFHLai (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like they went up to IV, actually! Joofjoof (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool! Thanks for the expansion, Joofjoof. --PFHLai (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Long enough to qualify (500+ words of prose), with no concerns regarding formatting and the deployment of footnotes, and Earwig has found nothing wrong, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Battle of Sievierodonetsk (2022)

 * Would it be better to say that Russian forces seized control of the city, as there's potentially a possible counterattack to take it back? --M asem (t) 01:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posible counterattack clearly a WP:CRYSTAL BALL, there are news that Russian forces are now entering and laying siege to Lysychansk.OP blurb seems fine, short and neutral.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Its not so much CRYSTAL, but simply that the overall war in the Ukraine is still going, so there easily could be future action there, so there's no finality to having claimed just the city. --M asem (t) 15:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to propose an altblurb; I just took the result that's currently in the infobox of the article. Banedon (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Another long, grueling battle in eastern Ukraine, but it doesn't seem particularly pivotal; the war goes on. – Sca (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca. Just another local Stalingrad. Arado Ar 196 (C✙T) 12:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I forget the reasoning for why we didn't run that one, . — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 12:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A contingent of stubborn editors felt it was better suited for ongoing.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's probably not a done deal yet, and the war is bound to continue for much longer. KittenKlub (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The fall of Severodonetsk into Russian hands indicates that Ukraine's fight for self-determination is threatened more severely than previously expected. First the fall of Mariupol and now the fall of Severodentsk. Highly newsworthy and topical for "In the news" candidates. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Most RS indicating result of the battle ultimately leads to full Russian control of the Luhansk region very soon. EkoGraf (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Covered By Ongoing If feeling an article about a war is the most suitable place to post the results of its continual constituent battles makes one stubborn, too bad, this one prefers the term "solid". InedibleHulk (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - covered by ongoing, not a pivotal event. 🌈 <span style="background:linear-gradient(to top,#808,#DAD,blue,green,#FF0,#fA0,red,#800);border-radius:1em"> 4🧚‍♂am KING  👑 16:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Opoose per 4iamking and Sca. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't see where 4iamking commented. -- Sca (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * right above me ;) _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So why doesn't he use his user name in his sig? -- Sca (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it’s already covered by the ongoing item.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Oslo shootings

 * Probably needs a bit more prose, I get 336 words presently. Could expand more on the actual event (including about the LGBT celebrations, etc.) --M asem (t) 14:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll be expanding it over the next few hours, thanks for the recommendation . :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 15:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Expansion is good, so Support on significance as well. --M asem (t) 18:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. --M asem (t) 17:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. --M asem (t) 20:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. Perhaps what is "significant" is a more subjective judgement. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Support as per TRM. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as per TRM Grimes2 (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Kongsberg attack Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Would add that they are treating this as Islamic terrorism-related, which absolutely doesn't happen that often in Norway. M asem (t) 20:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oppose per Amakuru. Only two deaths means this event is not significant enough for ITN. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Show me where WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is, since that's a red link. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The edit histories of all those articles show that I've done so. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Support Mass shooting with sufficient news coverage. Motive and death toll are irrelevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Extremely unusual event, worldwide news coverage --Bjerrebæk (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * It's general Western-centrism. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 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. --M asem (t) 01:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. --M asem (t) 03:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

2022 Melilla incident

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

(Posted) RD: Harry Gration

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

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

 * Support I hate how my country has become. Marioedit8 (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please specify a blurb instead of rushing to nominate this. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 14:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I specified one before your edit. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. --M asem (t) 14:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Trying to get sources to include Thomas' concurrence. The language in that says things like Obergefell is next. --M asem (t) 15:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. --M asem (t) 15:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Overturning a constitutional right in this way after nearly 50 years is virtually unprecedented.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Support for immediate posting. We can fine-tune the language later, but this is beyond any doubt huge news of global significance. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 14:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I think mass protests are virtually guaranteed. Watch for an article on that.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I think the alt blurb is better for this reason.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 14:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. M asem (t) 15:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. M asem (t) 16:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Support I just don't have the words today. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - This is a landmark decision making headlines worldwide. -- <b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">Veggies</b> (<b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">talk</b>) 14:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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!  <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈  14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * You're only saying this to be contrary and dismissive. 167.98.52.246 (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The altblurb is better, I think. Edge3 (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt1 per nom. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb 1 is fine imo DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 15:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @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.  interstate  five   15:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Support per nom. Probably shakes everyone reading this, especially people like me who have attended protests.  interstate five   15:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Support alt1. A very important decision, definitely... — Coolperson177 (t&#124;c) 15:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously noteworthy (to understate it drastically), already covered by international media, international repercussions already evident . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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, 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)
 * 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)
 * Strong support This one's a no-brainer. X-Editor (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, a major political and societal development. Nsk92 (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 16:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * . El_C 16:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support -- thank you for posting this, El_C. Also glad we didn't post Bruen. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  16:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Support - very notable, and also it's good news. CR-1-AB (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * CORRECTION NEEDED 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)
 * 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. M asem (t) 17:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * ✅ &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

(Posted) RD: Leo Posada

 * Posted to RD. Much improved, appropriate depth of coverage, fully referenced. Posted quickly since this will age off very soon, but if anyone has any concerns please let me know.  Spencer T• C 04:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ernst Jacobi

 * Long enough to qualify (400+ words of prose), with no concerns regarding formatting and the deployment of footnotes, and no problems found by Earwig, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paula Stafford

 * Support. Article covers the 'essentials' (pun intended) and meets basic minimums for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Short but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 14:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rima Melati

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

Grenadian general election

 * 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)
 * Apparently, Dickon Mitchell defeated a guy named Keith Mitchell (no relation). Tube·of·Light 12:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Aye, that part's funny because it's true. On the other hand, I can Google no record of "a Miss Thomas Mitchell" having ever existed, so that's absurd. Plenty of Mrs. Thomas Mitchells and a few Thomas Mitchells from or near the great state of "Miss.", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Something is amiss there. Ought to be. --PFHLai (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There ought to be a miss I'm missing, you mean? I don't know, but I've seen a Thomasina on Twitter. As her blurb announces her as a Wicca Princess and "smart kid", though, I don't feel quite right about linking her into anything sketchy. So didja hear the one about the West Hendon pensioner and her inattentive watchdogs? Well, it turns out, they're close enough! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Results section must have prose. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good enough IMO. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Rm "needs attention"; still no prose summary of results.  Spencer T• C 00:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose until there's a prose summary of the results. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: Yuri Shatunov

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

Thiomargarita magnifica

 * Magnificent sulfur margarita? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Michelle Hunziker's visibly naked eyes? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Longest bacteria known Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Joseph2302. Unfortunately, I don't see the value of this either. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Joseph. DYK. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oppose. This sort of thing is much better suited to DYK than ITN. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- great for DYN, but not appropriate for ITN. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hugh McElhenny

 * Support Good article, so good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) US SCOTUS on gun rights

 * 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)
 * 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. M asem (t) 19:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Let's wait to see what else they gut. They effectively overturned Miranda too. —Cryptic 19:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No just that an officer that violates your minrada rights can't be civilly sued for that. But the criminal court implications still hold M asem (t) 19:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Moderately narrow ruling on the "proper cause" requirement for CCW. Notable in politics and US, but not that big overall.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Yes,, this only affects (sic) the US. Please see In_the_news/Candidates, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Oppose – Almost nothing will change. Surprise! Now I'm off to see my shrink, Dr. Pangloss. – Sca (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose…and?? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oppose New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen is pretty underwhelming in terms of describing the impact from this ruling.  Spencer T• C 02:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.   – Sca (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

RD: Mahmut Ustaosmanoğlu

 * Comment: Orange-tagged section, insufficient depth of coverage of subject's life and career.  Spencer T• C 14:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Izo

 * Support, appears good enough to post. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: Bruton Smith

 * Support, but could we have additional prose in the 'Personal life' section? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The intro mentions that the subject was very wealthy but this was not mentioned elsewhere in the wikibio; please elaborate on his wealth in the main body of the prose. A footnote for his DoB and unusual first name would be good, too. There are also other citation issues in the controversy section. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.speedsport.com/nascar/nascar-cup-series/bruton-smith-dead-at-95/ and https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/auto-racing/speedway-motorsports-founder-bruton-smith-dies-at-95/2022/06/22/5639f1d6-f26c-11ec-ac16-8fbf7194cd78_story.html claim that his DOB is March 2, but https://books.google.co.id/books?id=qbV2CQAAQBAJ&pg=PT14&lpg=PT14&dq=ollen+bruton+smith+march+3+1927 and https://books.google.co.id/books?id=JbABCwhdfhAC&pg=PA709&lpg=PA709&dq=ollen+bruton+smith+march+3+1927 claim that his DOB is March 3. Which DOB should be put into the article? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps both? Perhaps along the lines of: His date of birth was reported to be March 2nd or March 3rd .... or you pick one as the authority (WaPo?) and mention the other date in supplementary notes at the end of the section/article. Does this help? Thanks for fixing up the wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Bruton Smith needs more footnotes. DoB is unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tony Siragusa

 * Oppose multiple citation needed and better source needed tags. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I have added refs so there is only one citation needed tag now. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Time for re-review? --PFHLai (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, appears to be of sufficient quality for RD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jaylon Ferguson

 * Support Short, sourced and tragic. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * In that case, the 2021 season info should definitely be included in the "Professional career" section. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per InedibleHulk, though more info about his professional life besides his death could be included.  interstate five   15:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake

 * Support – Hundreds of fatalities, major disaster for the area. --Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A major disaster and the article looks good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Referenced, looks good to post Sherenk1 (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks for clarifying, I also support posting this then. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support clearly notable earthquake they should post in ITN.  HurricaneEdgar    08:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. --M asem (t) 12:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Although the blurb isn't an error, because it is "more than 1,000". <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joan van der Waals

 * Support Well referenced article. Also a very readable article about a scientist.KittenKlub (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Caleb Swanigan

 *  Oppose  A few citation tags to resolve.—Bagumba (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * oppose on quality GA in 2017, but a lot of things added that aren't cited - not least the statistics.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * & Fixed issues mentioned. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Support good enough for RD, even if the GA is questionable. Articles don't need to be GA standard to be posted on RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per other editors. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul M. Ellwood Jr.

 * Support Article is in good shape, well written, well cited, and is generally issue free. Good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kurt Equiluz

 * Support Satis. Grimes2 (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The article is good shape and well referenced. KittenKlub (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: Regimantas Adomaitis

 * Oppose Stub, undersourced – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not significantly improved after 3 days. --PFHLai (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Colin Grainger

 * Support article looks so good! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support GA and updated with death date, no further details look to have been given about a cause of death. Marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Clela Rorex

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , I removed Daily Kos and Out Boulder. I removed the tags from the reliable sources and the unneeded full citations tag. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks alright to me. Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: Uffe Ellemann-Jensen

 * Orange tag seeking more sources is appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Too many footnote-free paragraphs. Bibliography mostly unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose orange tagged for REFs, needs more citations. Some paragraphs are completely unsourced. Please fix this. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Colombian presidential election

 * Support Thank god. ITN/R as head of state change. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Of course; easy support. --Bedivere (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good and maybe its worth noting he's the first left-wing Colombian president. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is he, though? List of presidents of Colombia lists quite a few from the Colombian Liberal Party. Granted, there may be complications and nuance there, but for the most part I think leftists are seen as socially progressive liberals, not guerrilla insurgents. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Very highly significant, but #Mayoralty of Bogotá (2012–2014; 2014–2015) needs some attention first. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, 2022 Colombian presidential election should be the bolded article, not Gustavo Petro. —Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * . El_C 08:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support Monumental election result. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) French legislative election

 * 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)
 * It's unusual to point out who loses- we usually point out who wins. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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%. --M asem (t) 23:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * After realizing Ferrand lost his seat, I've withdrawn the alt. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * . El_C 08:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, 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)
 * ✅. El_C 17:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. El_C 17:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans-Dieter Bader

 * Support Full sourcing and good coverage of roles. Joofjoof (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Kammersänger. Good article. Grimes2 (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Gimbi massacre
- 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)
 * Comment: Body of the article is entirely reactions with no description of the event itself.  Spencer T• C 17:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, this is at least the second time this stuff has been missed. As discussed elsewhere ( there, and  and there, and here). (In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1091718496#[Attention_needed]_Madjoari_massacre. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC) Ps This is probably now too late. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

This, the May 2022 Madjoari massacre & the 2022 Bankass massacres are easily important enough, but they have far fewer sources & fewer editors. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Aaah, Jimmie! Always on point. Too bad this thing's expiring. I might've given you the chance to mention Mali. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dave Wickersham

 * Support - I'd like a longer lede, but otherwise well sourced and updated.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lennie Rosenbluth

 * Support. The article is a slam dunk.KittenKlub (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Dunked --PFHLai (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aleksei Parshin

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Cool, thanks for checking, Support. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks to be in sufficiently good shape. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mark Shields

 * Support. Well-known commentator, not always PC, but could be very funny. Article looks fine. RIP. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Clean start article which is well referenced. KittenKlub (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No details for the latter half of a 60 year career.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * His career at PBS and CNN is covered, what more detail are you seeking? Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "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)
 * Not really, he was a hack. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Mark Shields was nowledgeable and respected – and often entertaining. He'll be missed by millions. –  Sca (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Damian Casey
Stats table needs referenced. Otherwise, GTG.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean-Louis Trintignant

 * Oppose awards is unsatisfactorily referenced. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Grimes2 (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: COVID-19 pandemic

 * Strongest support - I was about to nominate this yesterday for similar reasons, but I was lazy CR-1-AB (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Yes, I agree. Regardless of my differences of opinion with, I had previously nominated this a few months ago when it was leaving the news cycle. We are not in a state of constant lockdowns as we were years ago, despite new variants springing up every now and then.--WaltCip- (talk)  20:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Given the situation in China still and rising rates, to call this a "part of everyday life" is still a bit too early. There are still daily headlines about COVID. --M asem (t) 21:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No it's not "a bit too early". COVID is almost in endemic phase, and nobody outside of China (and maybe the Wikipedia community) cares anymore CR-1-AB (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "nobody [...] cares anymore". Well, speak for yourself. There is nothing to indicate that in a few months national and international restrictive measures may be implemented again. Yes, everyone has started to forget the pandemic, but we are making a mistake to remove it from "ongoing" now. IMO, we should wait until the WHO declares it endemic. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you -- you may want to also !vote just so your comment doesn't get buried. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  06:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - packed to the back half of the news cycle now. Regional flare ups are going to happen for years, but for most folks the masks are off, the travel and vaccination mandates are ending, the public health orders have been lifted, and the daily updates have become monthly. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still in the news, still a pandemic. Big news today in the US re: vaccines for children. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Cases are up in California and the UK too. Apparently it's impacting the upcoming Tour de France. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * SacBee doesn't load for me, but The Guardian makes it clear that this is only a slight English rise (1:70 to 1:50) over last week's estimated infection rate. It's quite further below the one in thirteen guessed April 1. No comment on bike racing. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And one US state (Florida) updating it's vaccine guidance for children is hardly "big news" --LaserLegs (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The big news is the FDA authorization for under 5s, which obviously applies nationwide, rather than Florida's response. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Floydian. The Kip (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Lean Oppose I think we are certainly at the time where we can reasonably discuss this, though I think this is still a bit early. Situation in China notwithstanding, Covid still has an impact on most people's lives, even if most may experience relatively little disruption at this point. There have been less updates, but I think we are still at a point in which we are getting frequent enough updates to justify keeping this posted. Could certainly be convinced otherwise though. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support While it's technically still a coronavirus pandemic by most epidemiological standards and the disease is still fairly deadly to certain groups, it's not the daily life dominating global juggernaut it had been. As said, most restrictions have lifted. Fine to remain in the ongoing sidebar with active news lines like bird flu and opioids, but not the Big Box. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose -- it is still a pandemic per the WHO. It should not be removed from Ongoing until it is no longer a pandemic as per the WHO. Otherwise, we'll want constant posts about it on ITN again, especially as new vaccines roll out -- while we all want the vaccines, I don't think we want 30 ITN blurbs about it. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  02:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm pretty sure we won't want what none of us wants, and think you might like to reword your ending. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's easier to simply keep this in ongoing (because, you know, the pandemic IS still ongoing, and IS still killing thousands of people daily) then to go back to posting important updates to ITN. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rewrite. Personally, I still don't want multiple vaccines, a cocktail of vaccine blurbs or an Ongoing item whose updates are mainly numerical. But at least I see your point now! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, we do not have HIV/AIDS listed, and it remains a pandemic. I'm fine with it being an inclusion criteria, but it could remain a pandemic without the frequent updates required for the item to be ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Floydian Nyanardsan (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The emergency is long past over by now. 2001:558:6045:B5:3881:EDDF:FF29:4BE7 (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that's certainly not true. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  08:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's still a major story. -TenorTwelve (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support An awful lot of people die for an awful lot of reasons, an awful lot of problems receive a steady stream of news coverage over a long period of time, we can't list them all.--Llewee (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal ongoing articles are expected to be updated with pertinant new information every few days. This isn't the case for this article, as there's not much new pertinent information. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it's still a bit too soon. It's still very much in the news. When it isn't a pandemic, I think that'll be a suitable time for removal.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The AIDS epidemic has been going on since 1981. Probably need a different exit criteria, one that actually aligns with the In_the_news guidelines. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wishful thinking to think it’s passed. See headline news from yesterday in UK for example; Guardian. yorkshiresky (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Statistics_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_Kingdom context matters, so does the In_the_news guidelines. There is nothing new happening here, just the ebb and flow of infections. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above and per what I explained above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Reponding to what you asserted above, if the restrictions start up again we can evaluate and either blurb or put in ongoing. The section isn't for what might happen. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What's the most recent event here that we'd realistically have blurbed, if this weren't in ongoing? My gut feeling is that it should remain, but I'd really rather have an evidence-based reason. —Cryptic 13:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The China lockdown is probably the only significant thing in months as they're going in a different direction from the rest of the world. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem and Muboshgu. The pandemic is still receiving headline news on a daily basis. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * that page is not so much news and just some countries updating statistics for the most part. 4iamking (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - At this point, COVID is clearly an endemic rather than a pandemic. Interstellarity (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - localised stories may still occur, but at this point it is pretty much out of the news cycle and overshadowed by more siginificant global events. 4iamking (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. It's no longer news and the virus is here to stay. It can always be returned when the upsilon variant raises its ugly head. KittenKlub (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support it's of almost no interest other than the critically vulnerable right now. Long COVID is a real problem but that's not really what ITN is here for.  I'm currently sitting in a restaurant in the UK and can't see a single mask.  Cases are up and vulnerable people are dying, but it's faded to background now.  Of course if we see a spike because Omicron BA.7 or whatever future variant turns up and starts aggressively killing people, we can re-add it.  Otherwise, this is a done deal for now. PS I'm not sure when "it's a pandemic" became a criterion for ITN... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Here in Florida, there are still a fair number of people (including me!) wearing a mask. My friend visited London for work and was struck by the lack of people wearing masks... But I don't think that's reason to remove from ongoing. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  18:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Pandemic or endemic, it still is receiving daily coverage all around the world in a way HIV/AIDS and MERS definitely are not. Think about it. When was the last time major news agencies, sites, newspapers all around the globe reported on any other pandemic or endemic? On the other hand, COVID-19 generates headlines daily still. Other events might overshadow it a bit these days but it's not going away any time soon. Saying "it's no longer news" simply does not match the actual reporting going on. You can go to basically any news site today and it will have a covid-19-related story on there. Regards So  Why  18:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment -- for anyone who claims this is no longer in the news, COVID is the front page headline in my local newspaper. It is pretty clearly in the news. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  18:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not that its not in the news, but there isn't anything new in the news... Most news stories these days are either "X amount of covid cases reported in Y location", or the occasional politician/celebrity being diagnosed, That's hardly significant. 4iamking (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, most stories are about new vaccine rules, discussions on new rules/restrictions to combat rising cases etc. The amount of cases is routinely reported by all major news outlets but usually not in headlines. Regards So  Why  20:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You already opposed rockstone, no need to oppose again. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why it says "comment" and not "oppose"... -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I still have to wear a mask when on the train. There are restrictions still in place in parts of the world. Steelkamp (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose China is doubling down on its zero-COVID policy which will generate lockdown and supply chain chaos into 2023. See FT; CNN; Guardian; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support To all those saying "the WHO still classifies it as a pandemic" - they also consider the same for HIV/AIDS. And more to the point, a single authority's classification that X is a problem does not make X an ongoing news item, that's why we don't put Climate change or Israel-Palestine conflict as ITN ongoing. Gaioa  (T C L) 17:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's still in the media - every day. Given the continuing restrictions and coverage, it's too soon. Nfitz (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

[ATTENTION, please.] RD: Bruno Pereira

 * Comment: IMO this seems more toward WP:1EVENT, as none of the sources in the article are from before this month. Also does not have the minimum three complete, well-formed paragraphs; article is mostly 1- and 2-sentence "paragraphs" at present.  Spencer T• C 16:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: Tim Sale

 * Weak oppose orange-tagged and there's cn tags that must be fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Much of the Bibliography section still needs to be sourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ivonne Haza

 * Support Satis. Grimes2 (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What's with the family tree in the personal life section? Seems like fluff. Otherwise, all is good.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I found it, and didn't have the heart to remove it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article seems good. Alex-h (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) NBA Finals

 * Support Has game summaries, referenced. Just added 2 pics of Curry to the image protection page.  Spencer T• C 04:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Background and series is covered and sourced.—Bagumba (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The 2022 NBA Finals article covers the games very well. Crossover1370  (talk &#124; contribs) 05:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is comprehensive and well-sourced. 2603:8000:144:8D00:680A:1246:E89:C13D (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Road to the final" section seems to have nested tables, which is prohibited by MOS:ACCESS as it confuses screen readers. Unmarking as ready, as this should be resolved before posting. Otherwise, looks good enough. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, can those tables explain the abbrevations (x, y, c, pi), as most readers won't know what they mean? I know they're to do with how teams qualified for playoffs and what round, but even I don't know what some of them mean. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Added. —Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Amakuru Even if an MOS tag were placed, it's a yellow tag, and not the orange and red types specified at WP:ITN as showstoppers. —Bagumba (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Amakuru: In any event, I've reformatted the tables, removing the nesting.—Bagumba (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, for accessibility issues the template would be Accessibility dispute, which is an orange-level tag and we take it a bit more seriously than regular MOS issues like having a few commas in the wrong places. Thanks for dealing, anyway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Amakuru Makes sense. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Post posting support despite me being a lifelong Celtics fan, GG to GSW. Article looks good enough for posting. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  11:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As another life-long Celtics fan, I believe that this team will win it one day.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose/Pull. Sporting events are entertainment & not important. 2001:558:6045:B5:3881:EDDF:FF29:4BE7 (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC) — 2001:558:6045:B5:3881:EDDF:FF29:4BE7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It doesn't matter if it's important. This is ITNR. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  08:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Internal conflict in Myanmar

 * Oppose seems like an arbitrary point to include, and am concerned this is a topic that is getting nearly daily updates (as ongoing items should be used for). --M asem (t) 14:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, Unfortunately the article does not show any new event or news for this ongoing conflict. Alex-h (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per above. Few to no recent updates. The Kip (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per above, Timeline section stops at "late 2021", not this June. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Not a single event, but armed resistance is intensifying.  For the protestors, the junta is also preparing the first legal executions since 1988. The articles on the 2021–2022 Myanmar insurgency and the 2021–2022 Myanmar protests need to be updated. Joofjoof (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * oppose There is simply no room to include in "Ongoing" all the conflicts currently going on in the world. Nor is there room to include all the other developments that are occurring of a different nature. That is why we have to be very strict with the requirements to be met and, in this case, as other editors have stated above, the proposed conflict in Myanmar doesn't meet them. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dom Phillips

 * The vast majority of the article is his disappearance and death. It needs more about his life. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Concern - This article was created a week ago, and as per Muboshgu, seems to focus primarily on his disappearance and death. I do not believe that ITN/RD was designed for such articles where the significance is as a result of the person's death. I won't !vote to outright oppose since ITN/RD does not exclude articles on the basis of significance. However, I see it as very difficult for the article to survive an AFD or a merger.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * He looked to be notable before his disappearance and death. He was a major reporter in the Amazon and a noted music reporter before that. I expect in the coming days obituaries will be published that will help summarize his life and career. Thriley (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's been established at all. Seems to be clearly WP:1EVENT at this point, and obits cannot counter that.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you consider examples from emboldened parent articles as any kind of valid guidance, the Deaths in 20xx series is fine with retaining entries notable for only one event, so long as the dead person's name is in the event's title. Moot point now, maybe, with an improved standalone bio. But something to think about for future obscurish victims of notable smaller killings. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Quality is not there yet. Basically a stub.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support But larger article is Murder of Bruno Pereira and Dom Phillips, which also needs attention.Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: exact date of death is not known but is almost certainly to have been 5 June. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The Washington Post published his obituary yesterday: Thriley (talk) 05:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The article looks very much improved now. Thriley (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Time for a re-review? --PFHLai (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: Should Bruno Pereira go to ITN/RD together with Dom Phillips? --PFHLai (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for the suggestion. I have nominated him to RD. The article looks ready. Thriley (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response, Thriley. I hope the reviews and support !votes will come soon. Not much time is left for these wikibios to stay eligible for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support seems good enough to be posted. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD  Spencer T• C 16:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

[ATTENTION, please.] RD: Peter Scott-Morgan

 * Missing any details on his career. Stephen 01:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Dubious sourcing - see WP:METRO for example. Major claims supported by the subject's website alone. Joofjoof (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Metro no longer used. If you still have issues with any source, perhaps you could add some tag(s)? May thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Metro was used to verify his death - I have removed it now, along with a blog reference. Inline tags have been added. Joofjoof (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Some work now done - others may like to carry on with it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Time for a re-review? --PFHLai (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 4 hours before these all fall off the queue? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No one voting support yet, so... --PFHLai (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please resolve the {Third-party inline} tag and a {Unreliable source?) tag. --PFHLai (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joel Whitburn

 * Oppose on quality Article is orange tagged for verification, and article remains a stub. Need additional prose and references in order for this wikibio to qualify for ITN. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This wikibio, now with 390 words of readable prose, is long enough to qualify. However, there is one remaining {cn} tag that still needs to be addressed. --PFHLai (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Time for a re-review? If the sentence with the {cn} tag gets removed, this wikibio will still be long enough to qualify. --PFHLai (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Short article, but it is adequate sourced. Not that it matters, but there are also plenty chart freaks, and as you can see with the number of wiki interlinks, Whitburn is known globally among a select group.KittenKlub (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing: monkeypox

 * Support I think by now the case for putting this into ongoing is necessary with rising cases. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I've made a couple changes, and I would recommend removing the flags.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Not COVID, still important This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Not noticeably in the news at this pt. – Sca (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Sca 23.242.184.63 (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support There have, in fact, been 72 monkeypox deaths so far this year according to the UN. That's more deaths than the Nigerian massacre or the Bangladesh fire, which we are currently blurbing.  And there's still plenty of daily news coverage of different aspects in major sources: BBC; Reuters; CNN; NYT; Atlantic, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * An issue is that monkeypox has been a constant threat in Africa, and there always are ongoing deaths from that. That's likely the bulk of that 72 number. However, the world news has generally turned a blind eye to covering that. It is only now with a more viral version that has survived cross continental spread has attention been given (the scope of the outbreak article). In fact our outbreak article reports 0 deaths so far from the
 * He outbreak. Thats the thing with money pox in general, it's like long standing conflicts in Africa or South America, that we know people are dying or long periods of time, but there's minimal attention given because it doesn't affect western nations. M asem (t) 20:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support There is a constant slow burn of cases, makes sense for it to be in ongoing. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 18:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a constant slow burn of human deaths from many other causes - malaria, heart disease, diabetes, road trauma, etc. We don't list them here as ongoing matters. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As before, this should be blurbed if and when WHO declare it a pandemic, then Ongoing after that. But until then it's just a matter of rich westerners getting upset that a disease regularly afflicting Africans has spread to their shores. Also as Sca says, it's not really in the news that much at the moment. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * PS - there's also an argument that this is a problem that will never go away. So If we put it in Ongoing then it will remain there indefinitely. Which means we should also list flu and malnutrition and certain conflicts as "ongoing" because they never end. But that's not the point of ongoing. It's for items that are updating very regularly with stories and updates that are each newsworthy in themselves. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very few deaths. There are diseases and flus going around all the time. This isnt any more noticeable with 72 deaths. Would HIV/AIDS be an ongoing topic. It is also a disease that can spread and kill people? Haris920 (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maybe wait until it's declared a PHEIC? 130.75.182.247 (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose until it's declared a pandemic by the WHO. Until then, no. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The World Health Organisation says it's not a pandemic, and unlikely to become one. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * COMMENT If we must discuss this, we must keep up with the planned rename. Monkeypox will be renamed, says World Health Organization HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wrong link ? Nfitz (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops. yes. Fixed. Thanks for the alert. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support It's not about death and it's not about what a council none of us elected have or haven't declared. It's about fever, pockmarks, joint pain, isolation and exhaustion. Those have always been miseries of life, of course, but there're new ways for more people to experience, prevent, treat, exploit and/or talk about them. The news has been going on about such constant suffering, worry and science for weeks now, with no end in sight. If we post it now, at least the nominations will stop. If not, Weak Wait (somebody might think of a good blurb). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are so many people in the world that are suffering and yet a very small portion are from monkeypox. Is not the combined hurt experienced by those under the rule of dictators, those without access to clean water, those without access to reliable food sources, those struggling with addition, or many other things of the like worse then those infected with this specific outbreak. "[F]ever, pockmarks, joint pain, isolation and exhaustion" are unpleasant, but this only scratches the surface of the world's suffering, and is certainly less of a threat alone than many other issues are. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that there are worse problems to have in the world. But of all of them, this is arguably the newest. At least "new" in the news sense, and continually getting updated, unlike Crime in Chicago, dementia or pancreatitis (for example only). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – WHO proposes change in "stigmatising" monkeypox name to ... something else. (Suggestion: With "donkeypox," they'd only have to change one letter. Or, if that doesn't quite work, how about "honkypox" – ??) – Sca (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a pandemic and so far no certainty that it will ever be one. Thriley (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - Certainly this is making the news, but I believe part of its dominating the news cycle is as a result of the mass hysteria which entered the media as a result of COVID-19's unprecedented impact on the world. As outlined above, this is not a pandemic, and our standard for posting any disease outbreak on ITN ought to be a declaration of a pandemic by a reliable source. --WaltCip- (talk)  13:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose just like all the other times this has been proposed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment it appears that there's some kind of underlying consensus that for an ITN story about health, we need to it be a "pandemic" now. Not sure that's a "healthy" way ahead, and exemplifies systemic bias really. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not quite that strong, a subject might be deemed newsworthy in its own right without being a pandemic, that's a sufficient but not necessary condition for posting. But in this particular case I'm opining, based on the evidence, that this is a run of the mill story until and unless it gets declared a pandemic. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd think the trigger for an item (not necessarily ongoing) would be a declaration by WHO that it is a Public Health Emergency of International Concern - which happens on average about every couple of years in the last decade. This precedes the declaration of a pandemic (and in most cases doesn't lead to a pandemic). Nfitz (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose 0 deaths, the few cases that happened seem to mostly spread among people partaking in underground gay orgies. I see no importance in this news and no global coverage 5.44.170.26 (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose There was an initial flurry of media coverage because of the unknown reason for the spread of a disease with an up to 10% death rate. Now that it appears this variant has a 0% death rate, and isn't spreading among the general population, it doesn't seem to be an ongoing issue. If WHO declares it to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern - then that's different, as it did for H1N1, ebola, Zika, polio, and Covid - then that would change things. Surely there are diseases that are more worthy of ongoing - such as Syphilis which kills tens of thousands of people a year. Nfitz (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Killing people annually for centuries is not the true mark of a hot news angle. That this new mostly gay outbreak has yet to kill anyone in the first world is part of its appeal, builds anticipation in readers and creates comparative analysis opportunities for socioeconomic feature writers. Anyway, you might be happy to know that more Albertans could suffer less syphilis in the plausibly nearish future. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Mohammad El Halabi

 * Oppose another conviction as part of a much larger problem. I haven't seen substantial international impact or interest. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Social worker sentenced to jail without actual international effects. Yawn. We're not a news ticker, people! Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe better suited for Portal:Current events than ITN? --PFHLai (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai: Maybe. I'm not familiar with ITN, so perhaps don't have the right sense of what qualifies here. How do things get added to that portal? Can anyone just edit it? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Affirmative. Unlike ITN on MainPage, Portal:Current events is not protected. Happy editing! --PFHLai (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: Charles Kernaghan

 * Comment There are a couple unsourced items left, but that's not the big problem. Washington Post seemed to have report his death on 9 June. I'm not sure whether it's relevant or not, but the 7 day period may or may not apply in this case. KittenKlub (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

[ATTENTION, please.] RD: Everett Peck

 * This wikibio is just long enough to qualify (327 words of readable prose), has footnotes at expected spots and has no obvious formatting problems. And Earwig has found nothing wrong. This wikibio is READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: A. B. Yehoshua

 * Is the article well cited? Is it long enough?  (735 words) Is it generally issue free?  Article does have sourcing issues, and that needs improvement IMMEDIATELY. Ping me once finished, I will reevaluate the page. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has sourcing issues and the lead can be expanded to reflect his importance/impact. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Still 10+ {cn} tags need to be addressed. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No improvements. --PFHLai (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Canada and Denmark agree to border settlement

 * @NorthernFalcon why not a link to Whisky War as well in altblurb? – robertsky (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My bad. Fixed.  Per the bolded article, I think Hans Island is closer to being ready for ITN than Whisky War, but I'm happy to have editors disagree. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Very interesting news of high encyclopedic value. I really don't remember a similar resolution of a territorial dispute. However, both articles require fixing the reference gaps before posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment it's debatable whether the bold link should be to the island or to Whisky War, which is the article for the dispute that's been resolved. In either case, some citations will be needed. Support in principle though, it seems a good encyclopedic story. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once the few citations still needed are added to both articles. We can bold both the island and the war article if they're both fundamental to thus story? Unusual but nothing to say we cannot do that. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- how often does something like this happen? Also, TIL that Canada technically borders Denmark! -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did you think Greenland popped in.?! Gotitbro (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per all above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The resolution of the "war"/conflict is the news not the island in and of itself, and thus the former should be bolded. Gotitbro (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment As of typing this, there are nine cite needed tags on the island article.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Lacks general significance. Might make a DYK. – Sca (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – While a very amusing topic, this is a very minor legacy border dispute regarding a small uninhabited piece of land. I recognize that resolutions of such border disputes are rare, but there is no significance to this one, as it contains no structures, resources, or even much nature. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to a lack of significance. The dispute was over a tiny, uninhabited, remote, cold island that isn't likely to be used for anything. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Except a DYK. ;-) -- Sca (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Not a significant news for a remote, uninhabited island. Alex-h (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - the significant part of this is that it is a peaceful resolution to a 44-year border dispute between two NATO countries. These disputes are very rare in such cases, and peaceful resolutions of such disputes anywhere in the world are a fairly infrequent occurence. Plus it's a goofy little story to have amongst our normal list of sombre news/disasters, and sports highlights, that latter of which also has little significance on the world stage (excluding maybe the Olympics and FIFA WC) - Floydian τ ¢ 16:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the significant part of this is that it is a peaceful resolution to a 44-year border dispute between two NATO countries. That would be significant, but that's not what this is. This is a playful farce of that.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support though I do wonder if we should wait until ratification. -- Vaulter  16:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:ITNMINIMUMDEATHS of zero. /s Howard the Duck (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. My condolences to those who were profiting from the exchange of liquor over the years and now no longer get free whiskey but despite the somewhat humorous nature the dispute took over the years, settling it after such a long time is indeed news and the sources show that this has been reported by a number of international news sources. Regards So  Why  20:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. It's nice that they came to an aknowlegement, would be interesting to see if they continue it as a tradition or not. Koltinn (talk) 21:15 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The island may remote and uninhabited, but so are a lot of places currently being fought over. Could have implications for other disputes. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This may be circumstantial, but a quick search for "Canada" and "Denmark" on Google lists this as part of its "Top stories" in both instances. Seems like that qualifies as pretty newsworthy. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - lots of good support here, but noting that there are still far too many citations needed in both Hans Island and Whisky War, so this can't be considered for ITN yet until that's resolved. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - More than just being newsworthy, it's interesting. I think our readers are best served by directing them to these types of events that they may not be exposed to on a daily basis.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to say this shouldn't be posted due to consensus, but I think news like this (not ground-shattering world news but a interesting tidbit that has recent news coverage and has a good article behind it) would really make for a better DYK or something inbetween ITN and DYK. --M asem (t) 12:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, ideally suited to DYK. -- Sca (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case, I'm going to be biased in favor of ITN, mostly because an item will be DYK for only a day while the story will stay on the ITN ticker for a few days longer, thus ensuring that more people have a chance to look at the article. WaltCip- (talk)  12:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And be bored. -- Sca (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know many people who go to Wikipedia, let alone ITN, expecting bungee jumping and hang-gliding and other exciting things. WaltCip- (talk)  13:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wars, mass shootings, epidemics, and sometimes regime changes can be exciting. (Not to mention snooker.) -- Sca (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am just postulating on something that falls between DYK and ITN. I'm not going to step on consensus for this to post at ITN, just feel we need something more in between to better capture encyclopidea-interesting but news-trivial items. M asem (t) 13:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a fair point. I think it'll be hard to create such an item on the Main Page because of the resistance of Wikipedians to make any major changes, especially to publicly visible pages. But I'd be behind your suggestion. WaltCip- (talk)  13:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Canada and Denmark now border each other. If the US made a treaty that caused it to have a land border with another nation (like, say, Brazil), it would be all over the ITN in a heartbeat. I think that border changes are usually notable enough for ITN. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In the significance debate, we haven't talked much about quality. There are 8 CNs and a lot more places with no refs.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Whilst I would love to support this in good faith, I cannot per the state of the article right now. 8 tags, so many places without referencing, and lots of cleanup needed. Once this is taken care of, I will strike this and change it to a support IGF. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. It is rare for a territorial dispute to be resolved so peacefully. Showiecz (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality too many cn tags need to be fixed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hold until our articles are in agreement as to whether the settlement has gone into effect. See Talk:Hans Island § Does Canada currently border Greenland / the Danish Realm?. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 00:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose From a Canadian perspective, this doesn't seem that significant - it got its 15 minutes of fame, and there's been little to no coverage here since the announcement. There are no implications coming out of this. I don't even see that there's been any mention of this from the Arctic Council despite their obvious interest in the Greenland/Canada border. Nfitz (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Phil Bennett

 * Support Well cited, looks fine.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

2022 Seytenga massacre

 * The 2022 Seytenga massacre article is currently a stub with less than 200 words. Anything more to add to the prose? Can Jihadist insurgency in Burkina Faso, which is a much more developed article, be worked into an alternative ITN candidate? --PFHLai (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roman Bunka

 * The wikibio currently has 370 words of readable prose and is therefore long enough to qualify. The prose carries footnotes where they are expected. Earwig found no likely violations. However, sourcing in the Discography section is incomplete. There are a handful of {cn} tags. Please add more REFs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ CN commented out, since there are no entries in worldcat. Grimes2 (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing the glaring omissions. Now posting... --PFHLai (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Philip Baker Hall

 * Please be reminded that the Filmography and Accolade sections need to be sourced. --PFHLai (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per PFHLai. Both Filmography and the Accolade sections MUST be cited in order for this to qualify for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Article mostly sourced now. Only one subsection needs some additional sourcing. 2001:BB6:4E18:E358:BC73:A318:CF23:6431 (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is now in worse shape, bare URLS, wrong sourcing and now the article has two (necessary) tags. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article in bad shape in terms of sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - something having bare URLS is not really a reason to oppose an ITN, it's easily fixed, so I did. I am concerned that so much of the article is sourced to one item, and there are still a lot of uncited roles.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Bare URLS do become a problem when the article becomes tagged because of it. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Many entries in the Filmography section still need to be sourced. --PFHLai (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Added some links. Film section now fully sourced, I think. Will give the TV ones a go. Article is fully sourced right now apart from a few TV roles. If this gets fully sourced, can it still be listed or is it there a time limit? 2001:BB6:4E18:E358:DD02:C4FD:D7F0:9250 (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new sources. Yes, there is indeed a time limit. News items have 7 days. Events and deaths on June 12th must be ready for posting by 23:59 (UTC) on June 19th. Thus, this RD nomination has less than 9 hours of eligibility remaining. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. It's almost done. 2001:BB6:4E18:E358:DD02:C4FD:D7F0:9250 (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Article now fully sourced. Can someone have another look at it now and see if it can be posted? 2001:BB6:4E18:E358:E039:D97F:5D62:D1B (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support referencing is now adequate. Local Variable (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted a bit late, but ok. --PFHLai (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Ryan

 * Comment I think I found sources for all of the statements with CN tags. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support No CN tags. Good enough. Grimes2 (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good, Alex-h (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Very weak support As AG, did he achieve anything more than a $9.1 billion settlement with the tobacco companies? I think it would be great to expand this subsection a bit more. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article could be worse, should be good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments: Please add REFs for getting "endorsement of every major newspaper in the state" in his re-election. Also, the lead mentions that he was a professor, but there is no mention of this job in the rest of the wikibio. Please elaborate on this in the main body of the prose. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have sourced that statement, and the lead no longer mentions him being a professor. Article should be good to go. Support. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the footnote, Fakescientist8000. Thanks to User:WikiDan61, that sentence in the intro on his professorship is now its own paragraph in the main prose. Posting. --PFHLai (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

(Needs attention) 75th Tony Awards

 * Oppose for now - no body prose or critical commentary on the results. A paragraph or two would be useful. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is body prose about the nomination process and the ceremony, and there is no expectation that there will be commentary about the awards or ceremony itself. We don't ask for that on, say, sporting events and to expect that for ceremonies is a double standard. --M asem (t) 15:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We do expect prose summaries for sports events, which is why we've rejected many sports event nominations recently. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is already present in the article. Its not a play by play summary like for sports but its a broad summary of the overall ceremony. M asem (t) 15:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per, an expectation of some information/commentary on the results is needed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - The ITN criteria for updates and quality does not require commentary on results within award shows.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with specific ITN criteria, it's about whether the article has fundamental information in it, which is always an ITN issue. This one has no prose on who won the actual awards, which is fundamental, just like a write up of a sporting event is fundamental. Background info on the venue and the hosts is not sufficient, the major winners need to be noted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We require a decent prose summary of the actual event for sporting nominations, the same applies here. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is located at the "Ceremony information" part of the article (listing presenters and featured performances). The article now also includes receptions and reviews. I don't know what else people are expecting of a summary of an awards presentation where nothing otherwise out of the ordinary happens (an exception being the Will Smith/Chris Rock mess from the recent Oscars). 100% agreed we need more than tables, but what to expect from something like the lower-key Tonys is not that high nor comparible to sporting events. --M asem (t) 00:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose nothing but tables really. People get all high and might about featured lists, well this isn't even to that standard and we want it to be front and centre at ITN? Nope. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support There is a decent amount of prose and as a summary of an awards presentation it is fine. I don't see anything fundamental missing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose According to the Guardian, "out of 34 eligible productions, 29 received nominations. That is clearly a world in which, as the Dodo said, “Everybody has won and all must have prizes". So this was indiscriminate promotion; like those trade shows in which gold medals are liberally distributed.  And notice that the Guardian report doesn't even mention A Strange Loop.  Instead it says that two other shows dominated.  It's not our job to make sense of such confused hype because we're an encyclopedia not a newspaper and so shouldn't editorialise with OR.  Let's wait for the verdict of history. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * First, the blurb is noting the awards that ITNR says are the ones to include in the blurb, so that's not vering from past. Second, the Tonys have always had a limited array of shows that are eligible (you can look at past ceremonies), due to the complexities of running stage productions in proper venues to qualify. But we recognize it as one of two top tier awards for theatre. So to argue it is self-promotional is not appropriate here, that would be disputing the basis of the ITNR item. --M asem (t) 12:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to nominate it for removal at ITNR. Interesting that you are advocating keeping the ITN section as stale as possible by voting against ITNR items.  Nearly 70k views, so getting into that WP:TOP25 territory some are suggesting ITN should become as well!  Oh the humanity. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The sourcing and content issues noted by the opposes above have been fixed for some time (there's expansion on the ceremony's events and reception/viewership) and it appears all properly sourced. There's no reason for this to not be posted at this point. --M asem (t) 15:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hilary Devey

 * Support looks suitably detailed and referenced. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks ok (although minor issue with "annual revenues of £92 million"). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Place and date of birth are not sourced with WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, is a self-published source, with no evidence of any oversight/verifiability. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The obituary from The Guardian now seems to support place and date, so I will add. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Google

 * comment I don't really fully understand the significance of what happened, but a Google engineer being placed on leave is clearly not a news story. im not well versed on the subject but if we take this from the view that it is a scientific breakthrough, then I feel like there should be an article about it that is separate from the one of a google department that we should link to. The article as it stands right now isn't really fit for front page posting. 4iamking (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose seems like speculation on whether the claim is true or not- if it is verified by some proper channels, then maybe it could be posted. Someone being suspended from their job for making speculations is not ITN-worthy though. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Oppose - I doubt we here at ITN possess the necessary qualifications to determine whether the claim of self-awareness has any veracity. This leaves us to judge whether the secondhand story is notable enough to post. Personally, I'm leaning towards no. I've certainly seen this story make the rounds on several Discord servers I'm in, mostly as a meme, but the blurb is inappropriate because it makes two suppositions: that LAmDA is telling the truth, and that the suspension of the engineer indicates an intent to cover up a massive development (reinforcing popular sentiments of "Google = Skynet"). Again, Wikipedia cannot, should not, and will not use its own voice to accentuate these incredible claims without appropriate confirmation from multiple reliable sources.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose If we were to post this, it would be about Google's AI gaining sentience, nothing about the engineer's leave would be the news. The problem is that there is subsequently no collaborating evidence for this, and thus we have nothing to post on, so this is basically a non-starter of a story. --M asem (t) 12:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's in the news in respectable sources.  Per the Turing test, it's not easy to prove self-awareness but this AI seems to be doing well compared to some of our more bot-like editors.  See also Lena for a thought-provoking account of how these things might go in a possible future.  It is written in the style of a Wikipedia article and has some interesting insights as to what might be done with compliant intelligences such as our volunteers... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Turing test does not prove self-awareness. It only tests whether or not a machine can produce output that it is indistinguishable from that of a human.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose – When Google AI starts reproducing little AIs with thoughts and feelings of their own this topic will be ITN-worthy. – Sca (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Could we get Google AI to write new Wiki articles (well, ones that might appeal to 7-year-olds, anyway)? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC) p.s. I've been secretly dating Alexa for over a year now, and next year we intend to marry (if Uncle Jeff says it's ok).
 * Oppose. No scientific evidence that the claim of sentience is true at all, the only corroboration comes from a primary source. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hein Eersel

 * Well cited, long enough and free of issues. (I hardly edited the article, my part was only adding that he died) I support this nomination. Ymnes (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Billy Kametz

 * Is the article well cited? Is it long enough?  Is it generally issue free?  then I support this nom, as it is READY for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 03:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The stubby wikibio currently has only 198 words of readable prose. Anything else to write about Billy? --PFHLai (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. 289 words now. --PFHLai (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: Sharon Oster

 * Support I have helped source some statements, and this wikibio should be READY for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Insufficient depth of coverage; needs more coverage about her academic work. For example, business strategy is mentioned in the intro but not mentioned elsewhere, and limited coverage about anything related to non-profits, which is also mentioned in the intro. With a paragraph (5-6 sentences) about Oster's work, this should be good to go after that.  Spencer T• C 16:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Jeanine Áñez prison sentence

 * Support her article looks greats. I'm sure that this is one of the most important trials in Latin America. Although I think that the proposed blurb is too long and I would propose the photo that Áñez has in infobox. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * First, I will point out that we didn't post her arrest as we expected to post on her conviction, which this is it. However, the article's body does not appear to be updated with results of this trial, and while the article is well sourced, that lede seems far too long and should be trimmed back. --M asem  (t) 12:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The relevant information has now been added to the article's body. It's pretty brisk now, but I'll expand on the full trial and reactions later. Hopefully what's there now is sufficient though. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment, Article is good, but most of it is about her life and career and not about the trial. Alex-h (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Relevant information about the final phase of the trial has now been added to the article, with further expansions in a short time. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Usual English phrase is "assumption of office" (as contrasted with "succession to office"). – Sca (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support A country's former President is imprisoned. Obviously newsworthy. How she became President is irrelevant. The are considerable doubts about the veracity of Russian elections, yet we persist in calling Putin its President. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose No importance, a criminal gets what she deserves. IF she was a high profile politician like Putin i'd support it, but she is not so i vote oppose DzhungarRabbit (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We DO NOT declare some countries to be more important than others here. That's precisely the attitude that US takes when it interferes in the politics of countries like Bolivia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You should not call her a criminal. The political situation was complicated, and the verdict could be politically motivated. Anyway, speaking of countries which lack independent and fair justice, one should be wary of calling her a criminal. I'm not saying that she is innocent, but criminal goes too far. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * She's a literal compradorial american puppet. Only someone entirely ignorant of the situation in Bolivia ("We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it") over the past few years could have called her innocent, lol DzhungarRabbit (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I live in the country. There is much more nuance here. And while I won't get into what I personally think, the multitude of foreign and Bolivian sources that note the potential lack of judicial independence in this trial means that calling her a criminal would be a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV standards. Regardless of your personal opinions, the oppose justification here doesn't really track as Wikipedia has featured much less high profile events on its in the new section. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not high profile enough? She was President of a country, FFS!!!!!! And it's not our job here to try to judge the merits of a country's justice system. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Imagine calling an unelected coup leader a former president, lmao. I shan't bother talking to you any longer, this page is an echo chamber DzhungarRabbit (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support -- if this happened in a country such as Canada or the United States, we would post this. This is notable. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as the actions she was charged for are related to presidential tenure. But the "amid concerns about the country's judicial independence" part could be dropped per WP:NPOV. Brandmeistertalk  06:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support with the blurb alteration suggested by above. Clearly notable enough event - former head of state being jailed for issues whilst they were in that role. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A former head of state sentenced to prison is notable.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Former head of state being sentenced to jail over a coup is noteworthy. Although a shorter blurb would be better. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality seems fine. Former head of state being sentenced to jail is definitely ITN worthy. Prodrummer619 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting alt. --Tone 14:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: Billy Bingham

 * There's a lot of stuff uncited - if you can cite the prose without a cite, I'd be happy.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hasn't even listed his stint as Northern Ireland manager in the deaths category. Who are these so-called contributers? 209.93.194.188 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Orange tagged. Unfortunately a lot of it is cited to "Northern Ireland's Footballing Greats" which appears to be a blog.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Julee Cruise

 * Oppose Article is tagged (needs work). Support Wow, the article has been significantly improved and I've even tried fixing the prose issue towards the later half of her career section. Although I'd like to see her lead to be expanded by just a bit (such as mentioning her other singles and clarifying if she'd ever had a role/appearance on Twin Peaks might be worth mentioning in the lead), however the article has been fixed and has my support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an old, irrelevant tag from 2017 saying article needed more citations. I've removed it now as I see several citations have been added to the article - and overall it has plenty of references - but it was forgotten to remove the tag. 2001:BB6:4E18:E358:1CFD:CD1C:66D1:AC57 (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make it better or it doesn't matter how long ago the tag was added. A quick scan and the article does need ref work. The subsections "Other collaborations" and "Cover versions, film soundtracks and adverts" have zero sources and the Discography section has no sources as well. The tag had no reason to be removed when the article has many sections not having a single source. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, it doesn't have "plenty of references", there are whole unsourced paragraphs, and many of them. Orange tag for more sources is appropriate. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I haven't worked on the article before. I'm not sure why you removed the Guardian source though? I put that back. It could be used somewhere else in the article if it's not appropriate where it is. But as it's the biggest news source to first report this sad news I think it should be kept. Perhaps other editors will work on the article now given the news to bring it up to the quality level required. I've seen people do that when obituaries have been in the news - they've cleaned up the article and submitted it here. Perhaps I submitted it here too quickly - if so, my mistake, just didn't want the news to get lost in the shuffle and I happened to see it this morning. 2001:BB6:4E18:E358:1CFD:CD1C:66D1:AC57 (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you look at my edit I did not remove the source entirely, I moved it to the illness and death section where it is more appropriate. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 2001:BB6:4E18:E358:1CFD:CD1C:66D1:AC57 (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @ TDKR Chicago 101 She did have a role in Twin Peaks, the original series, and the movie Fire Walk With Me, as "Roadhouse Singer". She appeared on stage in the show singing, meaning she was a character in the town within its fictional world. 2001:BB6:4E18:E358:594D:BC2:C904:5469 (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per my comment above, needs more sources. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Rolling Stone and other outlets now beginning to pick up the news - Singer and David Lynch Collaborator Julee Cruise Dead at 65 - Rolling Stone - and the article has now been updated to include many more sources by myself and other editors. 2001:BB6:4E18:E358:1CFD:CD1C:66D1:AC57 (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be sourced now. Grimes2 (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The back-half of the Career section seems rather WP:PROSELINE-ish. --PFHLai (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Sourcing issues have been addressed.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted A proseline concern was raised, but its isolated, and a proseline tag, even if it were applied, is not a show-stopping orange or red.—Bagumba (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Thailand legalises marihuana

 * Oppose the nth country to do something is generally unremarkable. Stephen 00:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose While it's obviously not the first country to legalize cannabis production, I feel that Thailand being the first Asian country to do so does make it notable. We do occasionally post stories about countries being the first in the region to legalize certain things, such as when Taiwan became the first Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage. However, 1) the main article should be Cannabis in Thailand, not Legality of cannabis, and 2) the "Cannabis in Thailand" article needs more development before it can be posted. Mount Patagonia (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support especially since they want to do it as a cash crop, meaning there will be an international legal market for such light drugs in the near future. 86.105.110.150 (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article Cannabis in Thailand claims this is a first but Cannabis in South Korea claims the same first. We need to get our facts straight first. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the South Korea article, while it was the first in the East Asia region to legalize the use of medical cannabis, cultivation and recreational use remain illegal. With Thailand production is permitted and recreational use is de facto allowed. Should be squared away right with some clarifications. Mount Patagonia (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – The article Cannabis in Thailand uses the conventional spelling marijuana, not "marihuana" as in nom. title. – Sca (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Presumably just a typo from OP XxLuckyCxX (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ? -- Sca (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not the first, and we aren't going to post every country that does this. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Iranian food protests
Protests are huge, those are current events. 67.170.255.241 (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the article updated to reflect events in June, which make this fail any reason to post. --M asem (t) 01:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Current events should go to Portal: Current events, not ITN, unless there is an updated wikiarticle about the big news. --PFHLai (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the article is orange-tagged, and doesn't have any recent updates that suggest ITN-worthiness of posting. This seems like an ongoing event of similar importance to the 2022 United States infant formula shortage, which we agreed not to post a few weeks ago, so not important enough for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Joseph. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close article should be placed in Portal:Current events, not ITN. Supporting this whilst opposing the US baby formula shortage is mere anti America bias, although this is basically the same thing (restricted to one country w/out massive impact on geopolitical events. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  12:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Wimepocey. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Aamir Liaquat Hussain

 * Comment Half (more-than half?) of the article is about controversies including the education section with nothing much to say about his political, media, religious and writing career. Gotitbro (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, he was arguably the most controversial person in Pakistan. His political and religious careers were really just a joke so I understand why the article is filled with his controversies. Before his death, the only thing he was famous for was the amount of women he had married and how badly he had treated his wife.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 15:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hamza Ali Shah oxymoron much? married multiple women, but treated one like crap? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to WP:NPOV and WP:Controversy sections issues. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Joseph2302 and Gotitbro.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 15:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Still orange-tagged for {Criticism}, which must be addressed and resolved before this RD nom can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christof May

 * Support Tragic. Grimes2 (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Please add ref and footnote to DoB. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bruce Kent

 * Could you clean up the three CN tags on the article?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw two. Both now sorted. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Anything else required?? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked now. "Left the priesthood" - I don't understand. Afaik you are priest forever, you could leave the church or your position. The statement has a "failed verification" tag, - no time to dig in further. I see many one-sentence paragraphs, and would prefer chronological order, but that's rather cosmetics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for flagging. That {fv} tag had lain dormant since 2014. The source actually says "retired from active ministry", but does not give any reason. So I have added a supporting source. p.s. I think it is quite possible to leave the priesthood. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So now? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 26 hours later... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Psst... @Gerda Arendt Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Retire from duties, or being released from duties, is not the same as "leaving the priesthood", the same way as once baptised, you can leave the church, but will still be regarded baptised. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - although we're only aiming for start or C class at ITN, I nonetheless feel this article is missing some vital aspects of Kent's life. In particular, his years of anti-war activism and involvement with CND (which is only really mentioned in passing in the lead). Some more commentary in the "Politics" section on major things he did over the years should be added IMHO. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add something, as you seem to know better than most what is missing. Giving up on this now. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I like the new wording, and don't expect completeness. The one above is also not 'complete' and never will be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. It's thin, but adequate for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: Dale W. Jorgenson

 * Oppose on quality a lot of work to do. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Too many unreferenced paragraphs. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paula Rego

 * Support Article seems in good shape — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haris920 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 2022 June 8 (UTC)
 * Comment' some cn tags need to be fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me. Gotitbro (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Filled in the few remaining cn tags, looks good to go. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article looks great now. Good work! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: Song Hae
Is it possible to update the article to reflec his notability?Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the entire article has a grand total of two sentences of prose. Juxlos (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Juxlos. Also the nominator says While the article is a stub, he is important enough to go on the main page. This is wrong as RD nominations are always considered notable and are only judged on quality.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 06:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the article long enough? Is it well cited?  Is it otherwise issue free?  Please expand the article in order to demonstrate his notability. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Berlin car attack

 * Oppose – Below the radar, for now at least. One fatality, six critically injured, unidentified 29-year-old driver arrested (per Spiegel). – Sca (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and re-submit Formatting on this nom is all sorts of messed up and it’s not an WP:ITNR event as the nom says. The Kip (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Formatting issues fixed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies about the formatting errors this is the first time I've created an ITN candidate. Thanks for fixing it Haris920 (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait and see what the long lasting impact of this is. Right now, not enough coverage for ITN posting. And article is way too short as well, so fails article quality. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait It is unclear if this was intentional or an accident. If the latter, its a sad unfortunate event, but we normally do not post such private vehicle accidents. Even if it is shown to be intentional, we'll need to see how significant it is. --M asem (t) 14:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, We don't know yet if this was a terrorist act or just an accident. Alex-h (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the article is too short. If it's shown to have been deliberate, it may be important enough - but that's not known yet. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article doesn't really tell us much more than the proposed blurb. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Coverage Thursday indicated driver had a history of mental instability.   – Sca (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, read that while it may have been intentional, it wasn't really planned and certainly not terrorism related. M asem (t) 16:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose One dead, not quite enough to be unordinary, even if it was deliberate/politically motivated. A very tragic event but not of great importance outside of Berlin. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * If the two mass shootings that got posted from the US had had similar body counts I would have supported posting them. I think if this was somebody drove their car into a school and ran down a dozen school children it would get more coverage.  If he had used a gun instead of a car it would get more coverage. Based on our article, the only differences between this and Uvalde is that the perpetrator used a car instead of a gun, didn't specifically target a school, and wasn't nearly as deadly (mostly because he didn't get the chance to spend an hour killing people at his leisure).  As it is, the article is really weak and unlikely to get any better. Oppose on quality.  Weakest Support on significance. Rockphed (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The rationale for why the attack occurred is what appears to be from someone that lacked full mental capacity, rather than a purposeful attack motive. We wouldn't post a similar situation in the case of a US car attack given all other factors being the same. The mass shootings we posted from the US were people that purposely planned their attack with full mental capacity and thus a different class of event. It should be recalled we did post the 2016 Berlin truck attack that was determined to be purposely planned. --M asem (t) 04:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nein No long-lasting impact from the story, and the article would be lucky to get through an AfD IMO.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marco Luzzago

 * Comment I feel like it would be useful to explain in a sentence in the lead what the position he held is about. At first glance I assumed he was some sort of officer in the Maltese army. Other than that, I'm left wondering what (if anything) he achieved in his time in office. He pledged to reform a constitutional charter, but unclear if he succeeded in that before his death, and otherwise the only thing mentioned is his trip to Lourdes, which is hardly earth shattering... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added some more content. But frankly -you can do the search by yourself on the internet to corroborate it– there is not much more information than official visits, reception of credentials, messages on key days for the Order and funerals. It's still a very ceremonial position of an Order that, despite having officially recognized sovereignty, has little executive power. The form of the sources is the basic one because I want to have it ready as soon as possible and to be able to make sure that the nomination is not filed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. Support then, it looks OK as a start class article. Marking as ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice, btw. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support current version has reasonable coverage of the events under his tenure. Joofjoof (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: Nobuyuki Idei

 * Oppose on quality a lot of work must be done. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Erasmus Schöfer

 * This wikibio is READY for RD. It is long enough to qualify (600+ words of prose), has footnotes where they are expected, and its formatting looks alright. And Earwig found absolutely nothing wrong. Good to go. --PFHLai (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy

 * Oppose -- Plenty of things spokespeople do have global repercussions. Very little of them meet the bar for a blurb. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is even the case of where the article may have been created too early, as whether this will have impacts 10+ years down the road is definitely not clear. --M asem (t) 05:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Something controversial in politics *gasp*! Not groundbreaking or even newsworthy. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Politician says something that angers people. Next. The Kip (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, recommending WP:SNOW closure as it’s clear consensus to post will not develop. The Kip (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close the article has been redirected. It seems there's consensus that this doesn't need an article, yet alone an ITN posting. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Stop nominating stuff that are very minor, it's just an Islamophobic person, which is bad, but not notable CR-1-AB (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close per all above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Orlando Jorge Mera

 * Is the article long enough? Is it well cited?  Is it generally issue free?  then this article is READY for RD, and thus I support this nom. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the section on his career could be expanded a bit more.... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC).
 * But maybe is enough... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: Bob Talamini

 * Oppose on quality far from ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the article long enough? Is it well cited?  Is it otherwise generally issue free?  Please fix the article (currently orange tagged for citations) in order to better its chances of being on ITN. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a stubby wikibio (only 271 words of readable prose) and the two longest paragraphs have zero footnotes. Are there anything else about this Kentucky Pro Football Hall-of-Famer to write about? Please expand the wikibio and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zeta Emilianidou

 * Is the article well cited? Is it long enough?  Is it generally issue free?  Then this article is READY for RD, and I Support this nom. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Boris Johnson no confidence vote

 * Who cares He's a leader of a country the size of Peru and with the population less than 1/3 of the biggest chinese province. Not to mention that leaders in that country change constantly but the policies don't. Oppose DzhungarRabbit (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I care -- from a standpoint of news. -- Sca (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait Unless he's ousted, it shouldn't be posted, but until the outcome is known this is very premature. 4iamking (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ya think? -- Sca (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait as 4iamking stated. Pretty sure if he is replaced that it would still be ITN/R, but otherwise this is just domestic politics. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fake is just getting it into the queue, I guess. -- Sca (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait per above. I don't know enough on UK politics to know what happens if the no confidence vote goes through - does that assure he is removed from office, or us it like US impeachment when one body may decide not to act on affirmed findings of anylother body. We want to post "the point of no return" ideally. --M asem (t) 19:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * He gets removed as the leader of the Conservative party, which is a defacto removal from office. Its up to the Conservative party then to nominate an (Interm) leader to replace him. It's an internal party matter though and not a vote of confidence in the House of Commons against the government. 4iamking (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If he loses then he has to resign and there'll be a leadership election in the Conservative Party. He won't be ousted as PM right away but once that leadership election is finalised then he'll leave. Quite major as these hardly ever happen XxLuckyCxX (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if there is a change in government, sure. Until then, no.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait Not expecting the vote to be successful (as in there won't be a lack of confidence for Johnson) but worth waiting to see the result before we do anything else XxLuckyCxX (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support It's certainly in the news; I'm currently watching the live coverage of the vote, following a feverish day of speculation. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The result was 211-148 in favour of Boris. The news media will be full of analysis and speculation about the implications now.  The issue will remain In the News . Andrew🐉(talk) 20:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * SNOW - Results are out; Boris is in, Suggest SNOW close. 4iamking (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose He has won the vote and knowing him, will stagger on. Would only have been worth posting if he'd lost-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christopher Pratt

 * Support article looks good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Would this be a candidate for the new disambiguation parenthetical, given the other guy is exclusively "Chris"?  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Left name as-is without any parenthetical, but open for discussion (not sure here versus WP:ERRORS).  Spencer T• C 05:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: Ken Kelly (artist)

 * Is the article well cited? Is it long enough?  Is it otherwise issue free?  Please fix the sourcing issues regarding this wikibio in order to ensure that it is ready for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Stub: Only 232 words Grimes2 (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) French Open

 * Oppose Insufficient prose on the matches aside from a sentence each for the singles' winners.—Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we need a write up for every event in the Events section, otherwise this article is incomplete and not suitable for main page coverage. See 2020 French Open for the most recent example that was posted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's just a pile of flags!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Whilst I don't think we need a massive amount of info on some of the smaller competitions (say wheelchair doubles), it should have some prose. The main competitions should have a significant summary.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article just lists the winners and their nationalities. More prose is needed.   Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 17:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality article needs additional prose in order to qualify for ITN. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs more prose on each event (other than just having the winners named in the lead). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I agree article needs more information on each event Alex-h (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Owo church attack

 * Support on notability, but needs expansion. I would also say "Catholic Church" and not "Roman Catholic Church". -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per Rockstone, but the death toll is still unclear so I would caution from explicitly saying that at least 50 died. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Could "mass shooting and bomb attack" be changed to something simpler such as "attack" or "massacre"? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Shortened it to "attack". -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They have recovered 50 bodies very early on so that's how we know know its at least 50; it's the only confirmed number so far.Abcmaxx (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Tentative/weak support so far. This BBC piece makes this event sound like it does not stand out against the broader backdrop of recent violence there, but it does not have the death toll. The unconfirmed 50+ strikes me as significant. It is hard to tell at this point whether this attack is part of some broader conflict, and which one. Insurgency in Southeastern Nigeria has casualties just over 100 people on one side of that conflict, so if it's that one, this would be a significant escalation.Chaser (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Its death toll makes it stand out, as does the fact that it happened in SW Nigeria, outside the usual areas which insurgents target. The Boko Haram insurgency is primarily in the NE, the Nigerian bandit conflict in the NW & the insurgency in Southeastern Nigeria in the SE. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support: Many dead sadly. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 21:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support when expanded beyond stub plus I added altblurb2 which is house style. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. I think it’s irrelevant if this is part of a broader conflict because the attack is significant on its own merits. In case there’s a significant escalation as a result, we can move it to ongoing as we’ve done many times before.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality needs destubbing, when ready, it should be ALT2 4iamking (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, quality is constantly improving as the situation develops. BD2412  T 23:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's true, I think that by tomorrow the page will have significantly expanded. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment should this be Owo church attack rather than Ondo church attack? I know there's another Owo in a different Nigerian state but usually these events are named after the town not the state.Abcmaxx (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done - <font face="Century Gothic"> Eugεn S¡m¡on  06:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, and somewhat prefer Alt Blurb II. Nsk92 (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I support on significance, but I have concerns about the article content.  Currently the article notes that no group has taken responsibility, but then uses weasely language to say that "many locals accused" members of an ethnic group and members of a semi-nomadic tribe of "complicity".  The sentence in question is sourced to a reliable source that does support the content, but I don't like that we are using wiki-voice to basically cast aspersions on entire tribes and ethnic groups without evidence. If this gets fixed, my !vote changes to support. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that of many such tragedies in that part of the world; mainly that no-one knows anything for sure and the only way of finding anything out is ask the locals, word of mouth, and then relate that as a possibility. Ultimately this was part of an ongoing ethno-religious conflict, so that is why fingers are pointed at certain groups, because those are the most likely sources of the violence.Abcmaxx (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:ONUnicorn amended it as per your comments. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What's the problem with saying that locals accused Fulani herders of responsibility? There's an entire ongoing conflict in Nigeria between farmers and Fulani herders. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the issue was according to the poster that it wasn't entirely clear who was accusing whom and in what context, and as a result sounded unencyclopaedic, but I've fixed this now.Abcmaxx (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Terrible tragedy. Any of the blurbs could be fine but I’d go with the initial blurb. -TenorTwelve (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment -- marked as Ready. The article seems to be in an acceptable state for ITN. Rest in Peace all the victims. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  02:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Wait – Thin. Sans 'Background' and 'Aftermath,' narrative is 275 words (out of 590 total). Two unnamed 'reverends' quoted. General significance seems negligible. – Sca (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Significance is clear, while Nigeria has ongoing violence, this was primarily in the north. An attack of this type in the south was unheard of. And while the two reverend are unnamed, I assume its because only their position matters, like when a spokesman for the Vatican gives a statement... its not who the spokesman is but what they say. --M asem (t) 13:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Quoting unnamed (and unofficial) sources volubly in a fairly short article isn't kosher by journalism standards, and I would think also not acceptable in encyclopedic writing. -- Sca (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Our BLP rules tend towards omission of names of non public people. While the names can be found in the given sources, the names are the least important thing than being a reverend at the church that survived the attack. This seems to be a really odd complaint.--M asem (t) 14:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * General significance seems negligible
 * What? This was one of the worst terrorist attacks in West African history, and one that is likely to hold a significant effect on the 2023 Nigerian presidential election. No idea why events like the Charlie Hebdo shooting (which killed 12 people and started a similar uproar in France) were sent to the ITN without too much issue but a massacre in Nigeria that killed at least four times more people is considered "negligible." Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that this attack stands out from the others, but if I had to guess, mostly because massacres in Nigeria are a relatively frequent occurrence, kinda like mass shootings in the USA. 4iamking (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The situation remains murky. Per AP, the attackers haven't been identified and their whereabouts is unknown. Speculation alludes to Boko, but this is merely a guess based on previous history. Given the circumstances, Wait would seem more appropriate than posting at this pt. (Changing my vote.) -- Sca (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Boko Haram is unlikely, if anything, it's probably part of the herder-farmer conflict in the country (which for the most part involves herder attacks and massacres on farmers) than the Boko Haram insurgency. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've nominated a few Africa-based articles (by chance rather than anything else) and the same issue always gets highlighted over and over again and the response is nearly always the same; we may never know anything more than we know now, there is overall little chance of any meaningful investigation. That is just the sad truth, that there is a chance that not only the perpetrators will evade the authorities but also we may never know the true motive and background of them. This doesn't make the event any less notable though. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Why are no URL links for the following sources (listed above) not provided? Agence France-Presse, Reuters, The Guardian, Al-Jazeera, ABC News, VOA, BBC. – Sca (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All those are referenced and linked in the article. Suspect the nom did not know to bring links forward. M asem (t) 14:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 00:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – This DW report on their English newscast Tues. appeared to reflect some uncertainty about the death toll. Puzzling. (Just an observation.) – Sca (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: Purely FWIW, German Wiki's ITN blurb says, "In Nigeria, several dozen people have died in an attack on a church" (In Nigeria sind bei einem Anschlag auf eine Kirche mehrere Dutzend Menschen ums Leben gekommen) . Their article cites 18 sources, all in English. Puzzling. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Kazakh constitutional referendum

 * Wait until results. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  09:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait I can't tell easily when the results are expected but it seems like within a few weeks or months so it is best to wait. --M asem (t) 12:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait per above. The article looks great and are constitutional amendments in very important aspects of the country, so, IMO, is ITN-worthy. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait till results Don't care about the specifics, but the blurb should mention the preceding unrest DzhungarRabbit (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait - Needs at least the preliminary results. 4iamking (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support after exit poll as per previous comments. Article very detailed and referenced already. Infobox needs expansion though I think? Abcmaxx (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb3 - Major news media is now reporting overwhelming victory for supporters of the amendment, so I think we can now move ahead given that there's no ambiguity regarding the outcome. Therefore I've added altblurb3.  Mel ma nn   11:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb4 Above, but blurb 3 seems not quite well-worded enough. The Kip (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Ready now, added a more condensed version in ALT2.4iamking (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like mentioning either the referendum or “voters” is necessary; otherwise, one could be led to believe this was a governmental/parliamentary action, not a democratic one. The Kip (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think having "(insert country) votes", would imply some sort of direct democracy. Regardless, any country upending their constitution to this extent is extremely noteworthy, the procedure in doing so is almost a secondary detail. 4iamking (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. On notability this item certainly deserves posting, but the article needs to be updated further to actually say that the referendum approved the constitutional amendments, and there need to be several solid WP:RS cited that explicitly say that. For the moment preliminary results say that there was a 68.4% voter turnout, and that 77.2% of the participating voters voted yes. However, Article 91 of the Constitution of Kazakhstan requires that, in order for a referendum approve a constitutional amendment, at least 50% of eligible voters take part (this requirement has apparently been met, so that the referendum is considered "valid"), and that at least 50% of the participating voters vote for the amendment in at least two thirds of "regions, cities of republican significance and the capital." The news sources I have seen don't say anything about this latter requirement having been met (although it probably has been met). Nsk92 (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless im missing something, no regional breakdown was included in the preliminary results that were released by the electoral commission, other than alluding to the fact that it passed with 77.18%. It's not ideal but I think the margin that high it's hard to image the regional requirements not being met. Without proper results I get that it's speculative in nature (as improbably as the other outcome is), but it could be several days to weeks until we get that. 4iamking (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is necessary to wait for the final official results before posting. However, I feel we do need to wait until some WP:RS clearly say that the constitutional amendments were approved by the referendum. The figure of 77.18% of the participating voters voting in favor is insufficient in this regard since we don't know how it was distributed geographically between the regions. Nsk92 (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The electoral comission officially states that the referendum met the majority threshold in all 17 regions, so any concerns of it potentially not meeting the regional requirement can now be dismissed. In addition the constitutional amendments come into force as of today (June 8). 4iamking (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If this information is added to the article, I think this would be ready.  Spencer T• C 05:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – The Guardian headlines its results story with "Kazakhs vote to strip founding figure Nazarbayev of privileges," saying 77% voted in favor. I'm not clear on the significance of this referendum. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The article is plenty long enough, seems to be well constructed, and didn't have any obvious [citation needed] tags. I think it meets the notability requirement as well. Rockphed (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Planning to post. So, which blurb is the best? Help me out :) --Tone 10:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For me, altblurbIV! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready. Consensus to post has developed. Waiting on posting admin. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 03:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 19:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Bangladesh fire

 * Support It could be a tad bit longer (I added some information) but given that they're still battling the fire and priority is on health services, I don't expect more details to emerge immediately. --M asem (t) 12:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support decent C class. Notable event. Venkat TL (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because it's easily important enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on notability and quality. Very fast on article creation as well.Abcmaxx (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Widely covered due to toll, now put at 49. We might wait a bit for further detail additions to 400-word article. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks important enough for ITN, it's the top story on BBC News for me right now. And article is more than just a disaster stub, so good enough to post IMO. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, This should be in ITN and article explains well. Alex-h (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Still a bit thin – 500 words – for Main Page promotion. Still burning at 10 p.m. local time, and still developing as to death toll. – Sca (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at available sources and there's almost nothing else that can be added at this point, since the fire is still going and toll still rising. --M asem (t) 16:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support "Readable prose size" is 665 words, which is long enough, and there aren't any significant gaps. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support – Yeah, it does total about 665 words now, and is quite readable. ('Weak' due to lack of wider import.) Suggest change "as of Sunday afternoon" to "at Sunday evening" (AP: "The fire raged for a second night"). – Sca (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

New President of Albania

 * Tentative support, though the article says he was elected on June 4, so this nomination should be placed there. --Tone 12:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So moved. --13:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality paragraph on early life is unsourced, and most of the rest of the Biography section just reads like a CV. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not ITNR, as the office of President of Albania is ceremonial, not executive, so generally, such nominatios aren't usually very successful (Mattarella's re-election is a bad precedent). In any case, I think the main article should be the presidential election, the quality of which is far from acceptable. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tony Pajaczkowski

 * Support Article was in terrible shape before his death. Great job with the expansion! – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dorothy E. Smith

 * Support article looks great. Good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sophie Freud

 * Support, Good Article for an honorable academic person. Alex-h (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Slightly barebones, but alright for an RD; noting that Sophie was Freud's granddaughter. Gotitbro (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Larry Hillman

 * Support Article is good enough. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ann Turner Cook

 * There are still some tags that need to be sorted out. After that, we are good to go! Support article has been fixed, and is now READY for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article now seems well sourced.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 18:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support marking ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support short but good enough. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Agneta Klingspor

 * Support Article has no issues. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the article long enough? Is it well cited?  Is it otherwise issue free?  I support this wikibio, as it is READY for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kai Bumann

 * Support 368 words. Sourced. Well done, Gerda! Grimes2 (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good and has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Post posting support Darn, posted faster than I could support! Anywho, this wikibio meets minimum RD requirements. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alden Roche

 * Support Good enough. Grimes2 (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, appears good enough. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Holford

 * Oppose Article needs expansion, for starters, it doesn't mention any info about his death. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @TDKR Chicago 101, I've expanded it a little bit to include info about his death. Any more advice would be appreciated.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 22:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Article is well cited, however, I do have some concerns about its length. Otherwise, it's generally issue free and should be ready for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * At 371 words, this wikibio is actually several words longer than Kai Bumann's. Posted next to Bumann. --PFHLai (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marion Barber III

 * Support Article looks good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II

 * Generally Support as I can't find any lack of citations in the article, and for most, we will never likely see another one of these in our lifetime. I wish the article was reworked to kill off the proseline ("On date, this happened") and be more cohesive, but that's not a requirement for posting. --M asem (t) 12:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is just a ceremonial celebration with absolutely no impact.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kiril. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as we had posted the Diamond Jubilee back in 2012, so we have solid precedence for this. These don't happen very often.--WaltCip- (talk)  12:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Very widely covered historic – though ceremonial – event. Ignoring it could been seen as a gratuitous snub of Britain's longest-reigning monarch. – Sca (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: – Surely a more on-topic photo could be found. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - I can't see why this wouldn't be notable enough, how many monarchs make 70 years? The Queen is probably the most well known in the world. Article seems fine, could do with splitting some proseline down, but not enough to keep off the main page  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Only the 4th Platinum Jubilee in history. Will be a long time until we see another. Mjroots (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously significant event with worldwide coverage. Polyamorph (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Probably the only such jubilee apt for ITN and we have precedent. Gotitbro (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kiril Simeonovski Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Lee Vilensky. Queen will, for sure, live forever, so shouldn't we consider adding her jubilee to ITNR? Arado Ar 196 (talk/contributions) 15:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually do think there's a legitimate case to make for adding jubilees to ITN/R, and I'm rather surprised they weren't there already. WaltCip- (talk)  16:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * the jubilees of all reigning monarchs at the time? From Monaco to Bahrain, passing through Bhutan and the Netherlands? I don't see it... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If it was done, I think it would have to be certain rare jubilees added to ITN/R--maybe golden jubilees and up. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The celebration of Platinum Jubilees (70th anniversary of taking reign) is pretty rare. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Widly covered and fairly rare event that directly impacts a number of nations. Maybe a ceremonial event which is why my support is just a slight one, but still seems worthy. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Kiril. Alex-h (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Polyamorph and Lee Vilenski. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 17:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's a decent article on a notable event, there aren't many platinum jubilees and this is getting widespread coverage.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - an almost unique event with worldwide media coverage. We previously posted the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II, which is far less common event. The only comparable event in modern times would have been the uncelebrated 70th jubilee of the Thai king in 2016, who was in very-poor health and died during the year. And of course there was Louis XIV of France in 1713. Nfitz (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support extremely rare event that is clearly getting significant international coverage. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment now that it's clear that for most editors this event is ITN-worthy, can we talk about quality? There is still an orange-tagged section. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The overall article is in good shape. I'm a little confused about the expansion tag says it needs more info about events planned in Canada, but reading further such as the "Events from February to May" subsection it covers the events planned and executed so I don't see the need for this tag. I might need some clarification about this tag's purpose. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A large event with international attention. Would be very unlikely to happen again in our lifetimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haris920 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted The image will follow once cascading protection takes effect. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * -- Would this be a better picture? [[Image:Arriva_London_North_LT816_on_route_73_along_Oxford_Street,_May_2022.jpg|140px]] Ktin (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally have no preference. I have not changed the image yet because I'm not clear on if cascading protection happened. The image doesn't appear at Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en, though a box with the file name is present. Strange. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This image transcluded properly, so I am changing to it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull -- this is completely expected, and her reign is non-notable; monarchies are silly. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Monarchies are silly" sounds very "I don't like it" to me. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Especially from someone who routinely supports daily events like mass shootings in Amurica. Jesus, get some contextual thinking.  This is an encyclopedia.  How many monarchs (whether you like them or not, and yeah, try hurling "Boston Tea Party" at us and we'll all just shrug and most of us will say "never heard of it") have reigned an Empire/Commonwealth/even a nation, for 70 years?  Nah, not newsworthy.  But yet another prick with a legal AR-15 shooting up kids is significant?  Get a grip. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Celebrating her reign is not newsworthy in the same way that the brutal murders of 19 children is, and you know this. Mass shootings that kill more than 8+ people remain rare in America. This is just blurbing a celebration of a 96 year old woman who's only accomplishment is being birthed by someone whose ancestors many generations earlier had murdered their way to the throne. Would you support blurbing celebrations of the 250th anniversary of American independence come 2026? That's about the same level. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The comments here and above are excessively disparaging. Not sure why this has turned into a this not that discussion, ITN is not bound to only specific types of items. And sure we can have articles for other jubilees as well, if they are well written and have coverage et al, but we will look into it when the time comes and shouldn't be a holdback now. Gotitbro (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. America as an entity supports the mass murder of people through its reluctance to do anything about gun control. That's absolutely nothing to do with a monarch reigning for 70 years.  I love that you have caveat your "mass shootings" with "kill more than 8+" is rare!  Just utterly bizarre.  Point me to the mass shootings in any other first world country with 8+ killings ever.  Happy to support Yank independence 2026 as that's meaningful.  Mass shootings which happen every single day in America, utterly pointless. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you're intellectually consistent, I'll give you that. Other first world countries have had mass shootings of more than 8+ deaths; the one that comes to mind immediately is the 2020 Nova Scotia attacks, which killed 22. It's certainly far more common here in the US. My apologies for being a bit of a dick. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Pull. Not a long term significant event, and we're not a news ticker. I'm glad of the extra day holiday and all, but it's a bit absurd to post fluff like this when we also regularly bypass news items that actually have a real effect on people's lives. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You got a holiday, which means it's already had more of an effect on your life than a rickety airplane crashing in the mountains of Nepal. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) It is probably by far the most significant monarchist event in recent history. And it's certainly all over the news.  And it's relevant to hundreds of millions of people on English language Wikipedia.  And it's 100% more relevant and longer lasting than the most recent mass shooting in the US.  No problem at all with this, and I'm the opposite of a Royalist btw.  I'm like a Democrat voting for "thoughts and prayers".  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Pull In the same category as trivia or celebrity news, and it's certainly misleading and inaccurate to portray this as something all commonwealth countries celebrate in any significant way.Abcmaxx (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I share concerns about the wording of the blurb. The "celebrations" are almost exclusively limited to the Commonwealth realms not the larger Commonwealth of Nations. Indeed the celebrations, especially things such as street parties, will be a very British affair. It was only this week the Australian PM appointed a new minister to oversee the country becoming a republic. AusLondonder (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to send you down a process rabbit-hole, but, please take blurb refinement recommendations to WP:ERRORS. They are handled in a time-judicious manner there. Ktin (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * PP weak support It's getting a lot of attention and it doesn't have a body count. The Queen's article is also FA. Realistically the next time she makes it onto this page will be with her passing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * or possibly if she makes it to May 28, 2024 and becomes the longest reigning monarch ever. Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Can we have a non-breaking space between Elizabeth and II? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support headline news around the world. Sad that the Depp/Herd trial got shot down as "beneath" ITN -- I half expected to find this one had the same fate. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support definitely one of the top 300 global news stories of the year. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * If this is your metric, then you should have supported the blurbing of the mass shootings... -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? The most recent mass shooting is just dust now.  No-one cares.  Kids are dead, no-one did anything, Ted Cruz is telling everyone the solution is more guns, and the mass populace in Amurica believe it all.  Fucking stupid beyond belief. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The mass shooting is still headline news, even on the BBC's website, I'm looking at it now. And no, the "mass populace" doesn't believe what Ted Cruz is selling, he's a hack, but that's neither here nor there. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The most recent mass shooting is just dust now If you're talking about Uvalde, you clearly don't know what is happening in that story. Here's some coverage from the past 24 hours. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You guys. You've had multiple mass shootings since Uvalde.  Get a grip.  This is a disgusting argument and utterly irrelevant to the Jubilee observations.  Legal mass slaughter in Amurica is a way of life.  We all know that.  The monarch of hundreds of millions of people getting to 70 years?  That's unique.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We have had multiple mass shootings, and most of those haven't killed anyone, or were related to gang violence. It's the same way that a mass stabbing attack which kills no one won't make the news. And no, mass slaughter is not "legal", stop with the hyperbole. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Bizarre, you have children who can't buy a beer yet can buy an AR-15 and slaughter kids. You have "security staff" who just watch it all go on.  It's all part of the narrative.  Buy more guns, only good guys with guns can stop the bad guys with guns, etc etc.  Madness. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't mean it's legal to slaughter kids. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest a suitably competent admin closes this down as it's pretty clear that the Boston Tea Party is looking likely for a revival right now and it's both irrelevant and unseemly to continue this line of bollocks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, you're the one who brought all of this up. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you brought up blurbing mass shootings mate. Sorry you fucked that one up. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You know I can see the comments above, right? Quit lying -- you're the one who mentioned mass shootings in a response to my comment about monarchies being silly. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Lying"?? You know I can read timestamps above, right? I responded in two comments, both at 22:56.  Get a grip. And with luck, you'll take some advice and not bother interacting with me again, as it's clear that you and I operate on different levels.  Bye now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I can read the timestamps too; you brought up mass shootings first, on 22:56, I then responded to your comment in a later message. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

RD: Uri Zohar

 * Oppose on quality Regarding the nom com, "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post". Anywho, there needs to be additional citations regarding the filmography section. (Someone tried to link IMDb as a citation. Yuck.) Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I fixed the IMDB issue. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Something seems off about the formatting. "Biography" is not a standard heading style in biographies. <span style="font-family:ariel, serif;color:maroon">Havradim <span style="font-family:Ariel, serif;color: darkgreen">leaf a message  19:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't need to be, as long as the structure is a readable. Gotitbro (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Filmography still needs to be referenced.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barry Sussman

 * Weak oppose While the article is long enough, there is one tag that is the impostor among the requirements. Otherwise, it's generally issue free. Support I have cleaned up all the sourcing issues, so the article should be READY for RD. Marking as attention needed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support short but good enough. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks referenced, good to go.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andrée Geulen

 * Support good to me. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Tulsa shooting

 * Oppose If "no one brought this up" it will be for a reason...another shooting in a country where it's routine and few victims. Please take a look at previous nominations to see what is the usual trend in deciding shootings in the United States. Snow close. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Uhh, what does "snow close" mean? BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , WP:SNOW as in "a snowball's chance in hell". On the first vote too. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOWCLOSE, where the outcome of a discussion is largely known and winding discussions are only to prove futile. Gotitbro (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. This is in the news and the article looks to be in good shape. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose And close. The recent shootings were posted because they were exceptional in aspects (racially motivated/inordinate child killing), no such factor is apparent here, the article as of now itself notes "233rd mass shooting in the United States in 2022". ITN is clearly not a newsticker. Gotitbro (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I don't remember motive being an ITN criteria anywhere. We have a mass shooting that is in the news and we have a good article for it. That it's the 233rd mass shooting in the US in 2022 showcases that this is a significant problem, much more of an important issue than a Depp/Heard trial or whatever else. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Those were arguments on which the recent ITN postings were predicated upon, nothing sets this apart from the others which have not been posted. Gotitbro (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry but it sounds like you're now trying to use ITN as a way to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and that's totally not what this part of the main page is all about. We're not going to post each and every mass shooting in the United States in an attempt to make someone/anyone/the NRA/the GOP/Biden pay attention.  No-one there does pay attention, but in any case, this is an encyclopedia.  To even dare imagine than a mass shooting in the US with just five victims would be considered newsworthy is patently absurd. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Biden hates guns (at least by USA standards) but presidents aren't absolute monarchs (shudder), they can't pass laws without over half of the 435 equal population "MP's" AND 60% of the 100 state-sized districts' "MP's" agreeing (33 states elected theirs in 2020, 33 in 2018 & 34 in 2016, this makes getting 60 on anything harder cause extreme swings like Obama's coattails 2008 and Trump 2016 never repeat and in fact often reverse, Obama and Trump would've been worse off if all 100 senators were elected in 2010 and 2018 instead of just 1/3rd of them). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose mass shootings are a daily occurrence in the US and this one is nothing special, since there have been more than 200 mass shootings this year alone. I'd suggest we stop nominating these trivial events. If we need to highlight a problem in the US (and that's not what English language Wikipedia is here to do) put "mass shootings in the US" in ongoing. (PS we didn't post the ultra-trivial Depp/Heard shit either). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right, I should have pointed out that this is way more important than the jubilee. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you should have pointed out this is way more common than the Jubilee. Five people being killed in a mass shooting in America?  That's any day ending with -day, right?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good idea. But first, this discussion has to be closed. Let's wait to do that. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and yes. Snow close.--WaltCip- (talk)  23:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- this doesn't rise to the level of ITN. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Shooter revealed this was a revenge of sorts at a surgeon that he claims gave him long-term pain issues. Eg akin to a disgruntled worker and doesn't rise to the level of race-related or school shootings. --M asem  (t) 01:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Gerard Brennan

 * The Chinese name part needs to be cited or removed. After that, we're good to go. Cheers! Support Article is well cited, long enough, and generally issue free. Fakescientist8000 11:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fakescientist8000, commented out, since I couldn't find a source. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 14:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think he has a sufficiently interesting career to have such a short biography...I think it could be expanded more. There are some tags to fix, yet. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alsoriano97, at 2500 characters of prose, it's well over the 1500-character standard often used at DYK. I wish it were longer, too, but this is ITN, not GAN/FAC. On tags, there was only one ill-placed clarify tag, which I removed. Please remember the salient question: not, "Is it as good as it can be?" but rather, "Is it in decent enough shape that we can present it widely to readers without embarrassing ourselves?" If the answer to the latter question is yes, we should get it up while it's still timely. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What is clear is that you still do not respectfully assume constructive opinions. But beyond that, don't you think the article should talk about what he did as a High Court justice or even as Chief Justice? At least briefly? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to expand on the information about his term as High Court justice/Chief Justice already present in the article. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess that, since you are the nominator, there is no better person to do so. ;) _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Immediately after "Early life and education", we jump to "After retirement"? Where is the "Career" section? That's three decades of his life, often in prominent positions. These things establish notability and should not be missing from anyone's biography. Please fill this glaring gap (e.g. his legal training? what he did as a lawyer before becoming a judge? his appointment to the High Court and subsequently becoming Chief Justice? Perhaps a line of two about the Mabo case? Don't forget that he was also president of two Bar Associations and the founding president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal before he "retired"... What a career!) --PFHLai (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Danish EU Opt out Referendum

 * I updated the results table now, full results are in article. 4iamking (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality this is the kind of news that is ITN-worthy because of its real impact in many aspects. This is a serious place. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support On par with a national election in importance This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Important referendum, Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 04:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC); Edited 17:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmn, no. The UK ending it's opt out on the social chapter came first. 3142 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, corrected. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 17:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article could use some more work, particularly a reactions/aftermatch section. In addition, we don't just include all national referendums here, and I don't think the referendum is of such worldwide importance that it ought to be included. Gust Justice (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is just a change in the position of a member state regarding the participation in one particular policy area with no immediate implications. If the country had an opt-out that was abolished for the first time is only symbolic and the method of direct democracy doesn’t really give any additional weight here. The opt-out they had didn’t veto the implementation of policies in that area, so this is really a marginal change by a relatively small member state. I’d have perhaps considered supporting had Denmark abolished its opt-out regarding membership in the Eurozone and subsequently announced adoption of the euro.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is a fairly significant development especially given Denmark's history of euroscepticism and another consequence of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I would argue that a nationwide referendum would almost always be of ITN significance. AusLondonder (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs some prose in the results/reactions section, otherwise this is an ITN story. --Tone 11:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ... in principle, pending article development. Widely covered as a foreign policy sea-change occasioned by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose doesn't seem that significant in the grand scheme of things. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I had a read-through of the article and it looks to be in postable shape. The results and reactions sections look to be fleshed out, everything seems to be well-sourced and it's certainly noteworthy. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article is in good shape and it's unquestionably ITN-worthy. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Is this really in the news? I stay pretty well informed, and the only mention I've seen of this is in this thread. Looking at this week's (June 4) and last week's Economist there is no mention of this - even in the summary of various issues in the front section. Looking at the references in the articles, they all appear to be Danish, except for a Tweet from Emmanuel Macron. This seems to be a very local issue. Nfitz (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Guardian, the ABC, CNN, and the BBC all covered this, as did many overs. BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd think that the BBC article being 7 years old, say a lot. That said - media coverage of something doesn't make it ITN. There's been similar media coverage of numerous Swiss or California referendums over the years. The way the other articles are written, it looks to be more part of the ongoing Ukraine fallout than anything else. Nfitz (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you really comparing the referendums in Switzerland and California with the one held in Denmark, whereby a country, historically less subject to EU law, becomes subject to EU defense and security policies? Lol. And the fact that some news are not widely covered doesn't make them non-ITNR (look at the finals of sports competitions that are ITNR, for example). _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Or the entry into operation of the Elizabeth line whose nomination you supported... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Most Swiss/California referendums concern local laws and happen with way greater frequency, a referendum on a local tax or budgetary issue is going to be way less significant than one that concerns the exercising of provisions in international treaties. 4iamking (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Significant event that affects the entire EU, and a significant change of policy for Denmark. In addition, the result is unusual - Denmark usually votes no in EU referendums. BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So...? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 14:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Depp v. Heard verdict

 * Nope, absolutely not. We are not a tabloid magazine. This has little impact on the world. (Remember, this was a defamation trial, NOT a domestic abuse trial.) Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Its on the front page of the New York Times so is not Tabloid fodder. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose no way. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * strongest possible oppose this is nothing more than tabloidy gossip glorifying bad and abusive behavior in relationships and hardly relevant to an encyclopedia despite social media interest. PRAXIDICAE💕  19:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Celeb gossip does not belong on the main page at all. --M asem (t) 19:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Vehement oppose Absolutely not.  Blade Jogger 2049  Talk 20:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Re-opened. We post all manner of sports competitions and disasters of dubious long term notability. There are some facts: our WP:READERS are interested in entertainment, a massive world-wide industry. This story is in the news, and has been for some time, making headlines around the world (albeit that is not a requirement). The article is detailed with more prose than the four items currently in the box combined. Lastly, this isn't some simple gossip column, it's a libel case against content published in the press where libel cases are traditionally hard to make. I know this is going to go down in flames but seriously, this is getting more coverage than anything else currently in the box and everyone who opposes this knows that to be true whether the like it or not. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If any of the opposes thinks the story lacks encyclopedic value, then I suggest WP:AFD and if you're not willing to put in the effort I'd suggest your oppose is without merit. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I know this is going to go down in flames Then there's no point in reopening it - you're just wasting everyone's time.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Stories can be of encyclopedic value dye to broad coverage, but at the same time, utterly fail for they type of stories that ITN is meant for. The legal tribulations of formerly married people is definitely of this sort. --M asem (t) 20:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per LaserLegs. 2A00:23C7:3D09:6001:2C41:F38E:27F5:DD2B (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per LaserLegs, and I'd like to express my bemusement at this nomination being originally closed after just 16 minutes. <span style="display:inline-block;padding:2px;transform:skewy(-16deg);color:#FFF;background:#FA0">49 <span style="display:inline-block;transform:skewy(16deg);color:#FA0">TL   20:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm striking ALT0 and proposing ALT1, because Depp was also found liable for one count of libel, and though he "won" in terms of getting more money, it's not a pure vindication for him. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Very notable and high profile case. --TheDutchViewer (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality The article goes into an excessively detailed day-by-day (almost proseline), witness-by-witness rehashing of the trial. The trial itself should be summarized. The article also does not go into enough discussion of the ramifications of this case for libel law and free speech issues more broadly. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was just skimming through the article myself... and my god is it long and overly detailed. And what are the larger ramifications? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose little relevant, encyclopedic, worldwide, case. Two people suing each other in a defamation case is hardly a worldwide event. -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  20:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. WaltCip- (talk)  21:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Incredibly strong oppose. The article is a mess, and as far as relevance, this trial is of interest only to a particular (primarily American) audience who has been following it and probably already knows the verdict. Others do not care or are actively trying to avoid the case. —  Ghost River  21:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality alone per . Way, way, way too much detail. Article needs work before being on the front page. — Sirdog (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment While I know this is very polarizing, it disheartens me to see so many editors providing a vote without presenting rationale that comments as to why (particularly in relation to article quality or notability). I'd like to encourage anyone reading this comment to do so, regardless of the vote. — Sirdog (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Unless the case fundamentally changed how defamation is handled in the United States, there's nothing significant about two overpampered celebrities slinging mud against each other in court. And it's not just because I'm so annoyed at how social media algorithms kept shoving this "story" in my face for the past couple of weeks. Mount Patagonia (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose''' tripe, baloney, codswallop Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Codswallop! Thanks for teaching me a new word! PRAXIDICAE💕  21:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Support per LaserLegs. This is ITN, even if we want to pretend it's beneath ITN's dignity. Also, this is not primarily an American story; it's one of those few celebrity dramas that have an international angle: Heard was first found not liable in the UK. This also has another interesting angle: proving defamation is an extremely high bar in the US, much higher than in the UK: that defamation was proven in the US and not in the UK provides an interesting and unique legal angle. It is not just a celebrity drama. Finally, it appears as the headline news in the BBC. For all of these reasons, I strongly support this being posted ITN. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Remember, "strongest possible support" = support. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, and "strongest possible oppose" = oppose. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it clear from my previous statement that that applies too?  Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN is purposely not a.newdticker, hence why we care little about stories dominate headlines, and consider articles of broader relevance. M asem (t) 22:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible support This is ITN. The page in question has been running at over 50,000 page views per day. Odds on that it will make the top 25 report this week. This is what our readers are interested in. I disagree that the case has no broader significance in the era.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * our readers have the tabloids to read this kind of news. This place is an encyclopedia. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - quality of article isn't suitable. Item goes into ridiculous depths.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose two shitty people being shitty with other and being found guilty of variously being shitty with each other is not something I'd expect an encyclopedia to promote on its main page. Grow up. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. The world's first real-life soap series has ended, there are no plans for a sequel. Count Iblis (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We've Heard that before. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is neither a celebrity gossip magazine or even an ordinary newspaper. Even setting that aside, article also needs severe reworking as way too much of it is dedicated to a WP:INDISCRIMINATE recollection of events. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've done some entirely non-precision cutting, which needed to be done anyways. Doesn't address the this-is-not-what-Wikipedia-is issue, but at least removes most of the cruft. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tabloid, celebrity trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Terrible article which goes into mind-numbing levels of detail about an ultimately trivial story. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Rockstone. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and reclose. This is not the sort of story which rises to ITN importance, and there's also clearly no chance of it being posted, so time to put it out of its misery. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose and Reclose A defamation case between two people of very little influence is gossip stuff and nothing else. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality alone. While most of the other opposes are without merit the article contains too much excessive detail. Also don't reclose yet. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not the place to post a celebrity trial with no real long term importance. Thriley (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tabloid ITN is not. Depp is a well known actor, he has not been featured on ITN so far and if it was to be so it definitely shouldn't be about personal issues. Gotitbro (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The only instances where personal issues, IMO, rise to an ITN item would be of heads of countries/others which have an impact beyond themselves. The merit here (as some have pointed out) might have been in the defamation aspect of the case itself but news media is not highlighting that and this is clearly not a landmark case. Lasttly, what readers are "interested" in at the moment can be gauged from WP:TOP25 but that is neither here nor there and not what ITN is for, if so we can do away the ITN noms and replace them with the TOP25 itself. Gotitbro (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is celebrity tittle-tattle, nothing more. Than doesn't mean it isn't of interest to a portion of the readership but there is an apparent contradiction with the earlier UK case. ITN is not the place to even attempt to resolve an issue such as that. 3142 (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)