This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
Atarget article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Various factions in the Palestinian government, including rivals Fatah and Hamas, sign a declaration in Beijing, China, to end their divisions and form a unity government. (Reuters)
Support on notability, oppose on quality. The hottest day in modern history so far! Sadly, it's pretty much a yearly occurrence by now, so I wouldn't be surprised if it gets discussed for ITN/R. Last year's record was mostly supported, although it didn't end up being posted mostly because of quality issues. This time, the article hasn't been updated yet (and isn't linked in the blurb), so that should be done first. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is going to be a yearly occurrence, I would oppose posting for that reason. Hottest day ever is merely trivia. Natg 19 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without action, a record likely to broken within the year, and its not appropriate to keep posting that over and over. Obviously critical for trying to promote the need to fight climate change and the like, but its also along the lines of fearmongering; if we are going to post stories like this, I would rather go for anything that qualifies a much longer period of time (like I'm sure there were stories of 2023 being the hottest year on record). --Masem (t) 00:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Per Masem. I object to including any climate blurbs because it is a continuous record; Earth is warming every single day, month, and year. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)05:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article is a bit barebones, but I have no doubt that the deadliest landslide in Ethiopian history (with over 200 dead) is notable. I'd say post after improvements are made to the article. Bremps...19:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, this is unlikely to see much possible expansion - an unexpected landslide happened, hundreds die but it happened in a third-world country that media tend to ignore (it suffers from the "if a tree falls in a forest" syndrome). Even the Reuters article is about as short as I've ever seen one. Clearly notable if expanded. --Masem (t) 00:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support, as it's a well-sourced article about a notable anthropologist. He was one of my favorite authors, particularly Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States, and I'm sad to learn he died. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note that the 21 July protests are currently still described in the future-tense. I see potential here, however. Overall the article looks good and would be a fine feature. This is probably a natural peak for the protests this year? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support if we agree to include purely domestic news, let's be congruent and always do so. For this reason, this news is ITN-worthy, as these are protests that have taken place in large Spanish cities, in relation to a basic economic sector of the Spanish economy and with international repercussions (and even concern: cruise companies that want to avoid boarding in Barcelona or Mallorca, etc.). Article may need some work. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support notability nice article but could really do with an infobox. Abcmaxx (talk)
Oppose the larger archipelago protests were in April and May, and this is late July. The recent protest of 20,000 out of a population of about 1 million in a nation of 50 million is just... not particularly major? A sense check in Reuters does not give me any news articles in the main page - the only one about Spain in there is about the corruption investigation. Juxlos (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you didn't do that search, and I don't have an opinion on if this gets posted (though I nominated it for DYK before it was put here, to give you an indication), but Reuters posted this two hours before your !vote. A search for "Palma protests" should bring up today's coverage. Kingsif (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Currently, there are only two paragraphs in the article about protests occuring in July. The first one only says "In July 2024", so it may be that that protest is stale. The second paragraph describes a protest happening on 21 July, but the only effects of the protests seem to be "plans to raise the tourist tax on cruise ship visitors to the city staying less than 12 hours," which hardly seems significant enough for ITN. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first protests were the first week of July, they're stale. Of course, the article's 10 paragraphs total, how much more would you have written about one protest without going into NOTNEWS territory? Kingsif (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that if the protests were significant enough for ITN, then there would simply be more to write about them, particularly in regards to the effects of the protests. Currently the effects do not seem that significant. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a particularly large or impactful protest. Just last week there were more substantial protests in protests in Bangladesh, and last month protestors stormed Kenya's parliament. Both have caused numerous deaths and changes in government policy, while attracting substantial international coverage. In contrast, the protests in the Canary Islands have been small, peaceful, and generally local news. Also, the Reuters article linked to above says there were about 10,000 protestors, not the 'more than 20,000' claimed in the blurb. Modest Geniustalk13:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose whilst there have been some interesting articles about the protests e.g. BBC, the impact of these protest isn't enough to meet WP:ITNSIGNIF. Right now there are a few thousand protesters and the impact of the protests looks to be low i.e. it's not currently causing a substantial change to anything. If the scale or impact changes in future, then and only then might this meet ITNSIGNIF threshold. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment Added altblurb. There was support when Cavendish broke the record that it was more suitable to be included at the race conclusion rather as a standalone entry.yorkshiresky (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message about missing prose on the article's talk page some five hours ago but all that's been expanded thus far is the lead... Schwede6605:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The race win is ITN/R, so post when quality is ready... but absolutely oppose mention of Cavendish. There was no consensus for it when it happened last week and there's no justification for posting it now. If it were to he posted, it should have been when it was in the news, and I and many others opposed it at that time. Certain nobody is talking about that now and while impressive, it's just one of many records that can be set. — Amakuru (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paul W, you’ve added so much unsourced text to the lead that I placed an orange maintenance tag on the article. You haven’t placed a single word of prose in the body. For someone who has written GAs, I really have to wonder how you could possibly vote “support” here. Just in case it needs spelling out, your work on the article is putting it further away from it being ready. Schwede6620:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to stimulate others to expand the article. Work pressures mean I currently have little time to expand it myself. Paul W (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready. The article has no prose whatsoever about the course of the race i.e. what actually happened. Tables are not sufficient - there needs to be referenced prose. FWIW, if/when this is brought up to standard, I prefer the original blurb that specifies the race winner only. Modest Geniustalk11:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Widely considered the most important event in bicycle racing. Ready for posting: a summary of the race is given, together with detailed data on the participating teams, stages, and classifications. Ajgorhoe (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any prose summary of the race in the article. There's just four unreferenced sentences in the lead (not verified in the body) and data tables. Modest Geniustalk13:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready Of course this is a notable event, but as others have pointed out the article needs work. Compare the 2024 article to the 2023 one for instance. Ludicrous (talk)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Weak support. The prose summaries of each day's play are brief but present and do meet our minimum requirements. Referencing seems fine and this is on ITNR. As seems to be common in golf articles, there is excessive detail on the qualifying process, which I've tagged. I would prefer if that was shortened or split to a sub-article, but that's not vital. Otherwise this seems good to go. Modest Geniustalk11:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been posted and there seems to be no consensus to pull. I am closing this, the discussion has been running long enough. --Tone07:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The last time a US president didn't run for a second term was 1968, and a major party presidential candidate has never withdrawn so close to the election date. I doubt this will happen again in our lifetimes, so I'm not worried about setting a precedent. BilledMammal (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt Blurb II Given that this news around Biden's withdrawal is entirely unprecedented (closest to 1968), and has huge implications in global politics, I support posting Alt Blurb II on account of its simplicity and least biased statement. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While heavily in the news, this isn't quite on the same standard for ITN. Very rarely are non-ITN/R political stories posted, as the "real story" goes towards the ultimate result of the election. (which is already ITN/R regardless of outcome) (retracted) Nottheking (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The last time a president chose not to run for a second term was in 1968, this event has potential to change the outcome of this election cycle, for better or worse.
Johnson only pulled out when he almost lost the NH primary... Biden won all primaries except for AS, this might be the first time ever when a candidate for a major party had the delegates to be named the nominee... and then drop out. Scu ba (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As he had yet to be selected as the Democratic candidate (it was only presumptive), this is not really that significant of a story in terms of how we treat elections. --Masem (t) 18:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support First time in generations, maybe even ever, where the incumbent president drops out of their re-election bid after winning almost all the primaries and having enough delegates to be named the nominee.Scu ba (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt II, it is the most accurate and does the least editorializing. This is pretty huge, and has massive implications. Lunsel (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved that wording over my alt3; I pasted from alt1 instead of alt2 accidentally amidst edit conflicts, and accidentally left out "presumptive". —Cryptic18:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support very notable twist in the election cycle. We're reporting on the president not seeking re-election only four months before it, not some minor candidate dropping out of the race, so there's no worry of "precedent" here. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This is huge. Not just in American terms but also global terms. Very consequential and will definitely change the entire outcome of the election, as most Democrats were opposed to Biden to begin with. TwistedAxe[contact]18:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per BilledMammal. It's not about Biden not running - it's the timing. This all comes down one month from the DNC's nominating convention and very likely will throw a real wrench in things as far as the larger election goes. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Navel-gazing about who is and isn't running for office is a particular country is not ITN-worthy. We will post the result of the upcoming election - a post about a candidate not running in the election is not necessary, and presumably it would never be seriously considered for any other country. Chrisclear (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has been more than 50 years since the last time an eligible incumbent president didn't ran for the office so it is an pretty historic event. PrinceofPunjabTALK18:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It's news, It's important (means 100% chance new President on January 20), it's sourced. That's all we need pbp18:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's ridiculous that there would be any debate on this - as this is going to be the top news story on every major global newspaper tomorrow, English language or not. It's already the top headline right now on nearly every news site that regularly updates its content. Colipon+(Talk) 18:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Internal American politics. We would never post anything like this for any other country. We have enough systemic bias on the project. We post elections results, not ongoing developments in campaigns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Macron, for example, had withdrawn from the 2022 French Presidential elections at a similar point I think we would have posted him - and other countries, like Britain, would see us posting by default, as a PM withdrawing during an election would result in a new PM. BilledMammal (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree and seriously doubt we would have posted Macron dropping out. We did not post Angela Merckle's decision to retire, When the election results are in, we can post them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merkel decided to retire three years prior to the next election - if her decision was as last minute as this one, I think we would have posted it. BilledMammal (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merkel was never in the running for the CDU's leadership election in 2021. If you like, you could say she had dropped out in 2018. I'd say over two years is substantialy more notice than one month. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. The last time this happened with an Incumbent president was in the 1960s. I don't see this not making headlines around the world. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt4 This is a historic event which will have a major impact on the election. The fact that this is a national event in no way lessens its significance. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of Pope Benedict XVI, name a single country where we blurbed a head of state/government's decision to stand down. We didn't do it with Angela Merckle, and we didn't do it with the former PM of New Zealand. This is a glaring example of the very strong systemic bias that exists on Wikipedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the world is systemically biased towards America. That's just the reality of hegemonic politics. There's a reason this is instant headline news everywhere in the world. LocoTacoFever (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So start doing it? This sounds like an editor bias, not a news bias. I would totally support something that hasn't happened in 50+ years with politics. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did ask for resignations It's also very difficult to find circumstances equivalent to this, where a leader withdrew their candidacy in the middle of an election but did remained in office until their term concluded. Vaguely similar might be Tony Blair, whose announcement that he would step down in a year we posted. BilledMammal (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, Incumbent leader of the free world calls it quits.Not sure if his endorsed VP is presidential material but that's another tale. CoatCheck (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's not the 'leader of the free world'. Nobody elected the US to be overlord of other nations. It's a ridiculous bit of cold-war posturing that makes a mockery of the freedom of other nations. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If other nations aren't free to choose this mythic 'leader of the free world', in what sense are they free? How the hell do you have an unelected leader of world democracy? It's piffle. It's about as real a title as 'king of pop', and we oughtn't to indulge it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to think what you wish about the use of this phrase, but that doesn't change the fact that many RS use it. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it's a jingoistic peacock term with no basis in fact, and CoatCheck's use of it in their 'support' argument shouldn't count for anything. We can all use fancy terms of unsupported praise for the subjects of nominated articles, if we really want to, but it shouldn't have any bearing on whether the story gets posted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the assassination attempt wasn't up on ITN even 3 days and now this? It's politics inside a single political party. R or D primaries don't get featured on ITN. Political assassinations do, and the last one didn't even last 3 days. 2A02:2F05:1000:6700:5A9:2759:BC9A:5403 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support but wait until we've sourced everything. This has made worldwide headlines, and is likely the latest withdrawal in U.S. history. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: It is centered around American politics, yes, but it is a huge development that inherently recontextualizes the entire election & geopolitical landscape. Likewise, nothing like it has ever happened in this country's history before. BOTTO (T•C)18:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ITN wouldn't normally include incumbents not contesting an election, but this story clearly is extremely notable and will be something the average reader may be looking for. Worth noting that one of the purposes of ITN is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." With that being said, we should perhaps wait a little bit to settle on a blurb and polish the target article. Gust Justice (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Johnson stayed in post as PM for months after the announcement but the intent to step down was significant, as it has been in other such cases. See lame duck (politics) which explains the effect of such announcements. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: theleekycauldron gave good reasons, it's obviously the #1 news story everywhere else. No good reason to not cover it here. Blurb should say "ends" not "suspends" per NYT website top headline "BIDEN DROPS OUT OF 2024 RACE". ☆ Bri (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - This moment has a significant impact on world politics, and it unprecedented for an American president to drop out of the race this soon before an election. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He’s not resigning as president but just announcing his intent not to run for a second term in an election in which he would be a clear underdog according to most opinion polls in the swing states. Similar things regularly happen around the globe, so we really don’t need to set a precedent.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've brought back your pyschic knowledge of what is going to happen (or would have been going to happen) later in the campaign once again. Can we stick to the facts, please? GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the facts clearly tell that he’s faring bad in the swing states, and that’s even well documented in this article. If your “facts” are different, you’re invited to correct the mistakes in the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - He's not stepping down as president, so this is about the internal workings of a single political party. We didn't announce when Keir Starmer became Leader of the Opposition, but only when he became Prime Minister. While not exactly parallel, this is a similar situation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+ Blurb V: Joe Biden is the subject of the sentence so his name should appear at the start of the sentence, rather than with a wordy explanation of his position. –Vuccala (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger Support Of course! A major turning point in the race, a race which some consider to be one of the most important, if not the most important in American History! As user @AirshipJungleman29 pointed out, this has not happened since 1968. An incumbent president not even seeking re-election! Of course, a major event happening today in which the most powerful political office in the world has had a major shakeup. How is this not WAY more notable than that Vietnamese politician dying (R.I.P)? I say it must be included, no doubt about it. Jayson (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But we would normally only post the outcome of that race. ITN is not generally concerned with the internal mechanisms of political races. We didn't post the calling of the French snap election, nor the formation of the NFP alliance to contest it, nor the outcome of the first round. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - you have to be frigging kidding me. Just because it happened in the USA, doesn't make it ITN. And if it was ITN, why didn't we nominate when this happened in ANY other country. Nfitz (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly Oppose I sort of understand the reason to post, since there has already been a lot about Biden running to continue his term (including a presidential debate), however, since he didn’t accept the nomination already, he technically wasn’t the party’s candidate yet. Plus, as mentioned, he’s not resigning, he’s just not continuing. If it was a resignation or a removal from power, it would be important. This isn’t a major change on the world stage, it’s only a change for the US. Kybrion (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Internal American politics. Not appropriate for ITN. If any other country's leader chose to not run for re-election, and somebody made this nomination, it would have been WP:SNOW.Melmann19:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Potential candidate steps away from standing for election", really not that important in general. We wouldn't do the same if the British PM opted not to stand, so no sense in doing it for Sleepy Joe. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)19:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree. And we should not have posted when Boris Johnson announced his resignation (but only when he actually went), and I have no desire to repeat that error here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't post the outcomes of the primaries. We don't post the outcomes of the party conventions. We post the outcome of the election, and this isn't that. This is an internal party matter. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seriously not. Domestic politics and another political drama. Per milionth time, this is not a news ticket, this is not a NYT headlines, and this us not USApedia. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SupportOppose By itself, being domestic politics doesn't automatically mean it shouldn't be featured at ITN (see WP:ITNCDONT, Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one). However, if it happened in another country, it would very much not have been blurbed, as it is one more campaign development rather than a definitive result, so posting it would risk reinforcing the Euro-American bias already present on ITN. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby: I'm struggling to think of any other country this - a leader withdrawing their candidacy during the election campaign, but remaining in power until the end of their term - has happened in. The closest I can think of is John Howard announcing at the start of the 2007 Australian election that if he won he would immediately step down and make Peter Costello prime minister, but even that isn't quite the same thing, as he was still running from Prime Minister.
I genuinely think that we would post this for any country in the G20, at the very least.
(Also, it's clearly snowing, so while it might seem I'm debating the merits of this proposal, I'm actually using this as an excuse to try to find similar events) BilledMammal (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that (we didn't post it - it wasn't even nominated), but it wasn't quite as last minute as this, with the Socialists having time to hold a primary. BilledMammal (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support The political equivalent of Michael Jordan stepping back from basketball at the peak of his career. We are truly on the most interesting timeline. Schierbecker (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This important development is clearly going to be the most significant event reported worldwide today, by a wide margin. Frankly, the idea that we might even consider omitting it from our "in the news" section would be met with confusion, disbelief, and scorn if it were suggested anywhere else than on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:IAR. Yes it's pre-election news, yes it's to do with candidacy, but it's undoubtedly the biggest news and it's what people are looking for. BBC News on television is frozen on this story ever since it broke, so it's hardly a parochial US story (I don't know on what planet the US president is a local-only story). Don't tell me that people are also looking for Taylor Swift or the latest Netflix releases, this is undoubtedly not the same tihng. This involves the incumbent president, it is extremely late in the electoral cycle, making it unprecedented as to what happens next. To my knowledge, the last time the incumbent pulled out was LBJ, who did so very early in the primaries, thus allowing the Democrats to elect their candidate the standard way. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not remotely ITN material, this would set a terrible precedent for posting news ticker material. I was unsure if this would be nominated or not, I thought someone might try it and it would be SNOW closed quickly, so genuinely gobsmacked to see this with support. We'll post the US election when the winner is known in November, but other than that we do not post details of the primaries and candidate selection and other minutiae. Do not post. — Amakuru (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's rendered more newsworthy because of the last-minute decision and the will-he-won't-he speculation of the last few weeks. Everyone's talking about the story now. But ultimately, objectively it's just a detail in the candidate selection process for the election. If Biden had chosen not to run back in January, would we have posted that? If Trump were to unexpectedly pull out now, would we post that? He's not standing down as president. I just think anything about the internals of an election is, from the point of view of ITN, minutiae.
Oops. The reporting is about "ending" his campaign, not suspending it. I'm sure technically it will be suspended for campaign finance rules, but if everyone and everywhere is saying "ended" than we should say it too. TheSavageNorwegian20:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This is the biggest news of the week by far globally, will be talked about for decades to come in historical and political circles, and there has never been an incumbent, eligible American president declining to run for reelection in the age of the internet. RPH (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - In ten years, today will be noted as merely an important-ish moment during the 2024 US presidency, of which there were several, but Biden is still the president, that isn't changing anytime soon (hopefully). ITN should be reserved for hugely significant moments. And I don't think what happened today qualifies. For the US, certainly, but Wikipedia is Wikipedia for everyone. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notcrystallball. How can you say it won't be considered important?
Weak support If he'd just decided not to run for a second term, this would not be ITN-worthy. It would just be tired old man do as he said and don't run again. But this late in the race, with all the mess and waves this makes, it will affect not just the US. Most of the world is watching too. Cart(talk)20:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very important news not only for the United States, but for the international community. It radically changes the course of the world's most important election. Notorious enough to be in 'In the News'.
Strong Support The last incumbent to drop out was Lyndon B. Johnson, more than 50 years ago. This has the potential to really shake up US politics in the long term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumMangoCloset (talk • contribs)
Weak oppose While major internal US politics, it's still fundamentally internal US politics that would not be covered if this were any other country. Windfarmer—talk20:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and let me just add that the United States is the 2nd largest democracy in the world. I arrived at this conclusion because it is the 3rd largest country by population in the world, with China and India above it in population and China is not a democracy and does not run direct elections. NamelessLameless (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support top news story globally. As noted above, ITN has posted when Prime Ministers announce they are stepping down but remaining a caretaker until their replacement is determined. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - US-centric internal politics. If this was happening in any other country, "incumbent who has been in power for only 4 years declines to run again due to health concerns" is just an event in an election cycle. This event is very important to one country, one that just happens to be over represented on this website. Those who are saying "this has never happened before" or "last time this happened was in the 1960s" are assuming the reader implicitly agrees that elections in other countries don't count. BugGhost🦗👻20:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and let me just add that the United States is the 2nd largest democracy in the world. I arrived at this conclusion because it is the 3rd largest country by population in the world, with China and India above it in population and China is not a democracy and does not run direct elections. NamelessLameless (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is very clearly "in the news". Additionally, the last time this occurred was with Lyndon B. Johnson, 56 years ago. It is clearly a very rare thing and sets a precedent not only for the USA but also for the international community. IncompA21:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'm not really convinced of the significance of this. If he were resigning as president I would surely support, but withdrawing from an election isn't really any more significant than the results of primaries or other internal party matters which aren't ever posted, only the result of the actual election. I don't think there's much reason to believe the course of the election will radically change with a Trump victory still most likely. Out of 195 countries in the world I'm sure there's frequent "never happened before/rarely happens in this country's politics" moments. Being "in the news" isn't enough for ITN - otherwise it would end up a celebrity news ticker --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absoutely NOT - We post the result of the election, not the processes or incidents that get us there. -- KTC (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We posted such an incident just a week ago – the shooting at a Trump election rally. The claim that we only post election results is clearly false. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Candidates being shot at is not part of the electoral process! It was an assassination attempt, and we (rightly) posted the attempted assassination if Robert Fico earlier this year. Its newsworthiness was only tangentially related to the fact that it happened at a rally. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the shooting story was big because of its effect on the campaign. It's one of the reasons that Biden has now withdrawn --it highlighted the apparent difference in the candidates' vigour. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point but the assassination attempt was featured because of the nature of the event being an assassination attempt on a major political figure as opposed to its effect on the campaign. No doubt it helped Trump but it was not the subject of the event. Joecompan (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is a major political figure because he's campaigning to be President again. This is not a coincidental detail; it's a fundamental part of the story. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ITN is not normally for internal workings of political campaigns. We shouldn't make an exception in this case either. --Mika1h (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is. The presumptive nominee doesn't let his name go forward to the national convention. That's entirely the internal workings of a party's campaign. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Biden’s withdrawal is internal party politics. Including this should also then warrant inclusion of DNC candidate next month, which we obviously shouldn't do. — hako9 (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People trying to gauge what's important by analyzing this directly miss the whole point of Wikipedia. We're supposed to look at reliable sources for guidance wherever possible. This isn't newsworthy or not newsworthy because it's an internal political event or a major U.S. story – it's newsworthy because it's in the news. All over the world. Right now. That's the only metric that really matters. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you could pretty easily eliminate the "internal politics" objection as an argument that deals with the appropriateness of topics in general but also ignores the specific story being discussed, so ITNATA would disqualify most of the arguments in this thread. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Announcement to withdraw a few months back would also have the same world ramifications and the same amount of headlines, but wouldn't have the overwhelming ITN inclusion concensus. Since it's closer to the dnc now, the significance is limited to higher likelihood of Trump winning as Andrew points below. And if that's the only factor, we shouldn't include this. — hako9 (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just an internal matter because Biden is the incumbent. His lame duck status now reduces his clout when dealing with other countries. And the announcement also affects the likelihood of Trump becoming president again which also influences international relations. That's why the rest of the world is taking such an interest in this (unlike Nepal or Rwanda). Andrew🐉(talk) 21:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that Rwanda's GDP is a measly 13.31 billion USD and Nepal's GDP is also a measly 40.83 billion USD, I would say they don't have much say in international relations. NamelessLameless (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would fully support events in Rwandan or Nepali politics being posted, if news media gave those events similar levels of coverage. A bunch of people here are commenting about what they personally feel is Important vs. Not Important, an inherently subjective matter of opinion, and something with no relation to ITN's purpose—to highlight content for the public WP audience that is related to "current news"—and that is not intended to be a criterion for judging what should go on ITN.
How do people know all those anonymous people out there reading Wikipedia aren't interested in a topic? Or, is it being implicitly asserted that they oughtn't, and by gum, if WP readers care about the wrong stuff, then our job is to give those foolish readers a stiff cropping about the ears and make sure we get across to them what it is they should care about, things such as *glances* Syria's dictatorship "winning" their latest sham election. (Hey if we're doing, "ITN items should be posted on what I, myself personally, find important" how 'bout some computing and "tech" news? Can we do updates on C++23 implementation progress?) Slowking Man (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The president of the United States is in the middle of a re-election campaign, about 3 and half months before election, when he stops this campaign and announces he will not seek re-election. It is a significant event in world politics, because the U.S. president is an important figure in world politics. Would not be that significant if it concerned a country with lesser military and political influence. Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even though I am coming to more philosophical views on ITN's purpose and what non-regular-user readers are quickly looking for, there isn't much to say about this except it happened. In more conventional !vote argument territory, we do not post when the parties select their candidates, and this is effectively just one part of that process and inherently less notable within the whole election. It could also create precedent for posting whenever an incumbent leader says they will not be seeking re-election, an often nothingburger of a story. Kingsif (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support A U.S. president stepping down from the election just months away from when it’s going to occur is a very rare event and deserves coverage. Hungry403 (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an intra-party issue and internal American politics. There has been no election and no resignation. As others have noted, we would never post anything like this for any other country. It's time to put out money where our mouth is on systemic bias. (Arguments like "It has been more than 50 years since..." or "notable, and rare, event" or "an extremely unique occurrence in our time" alone seem pretty weak.) — AjaxSmack22:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unprecedented in modern times. A clearly notable current event with potentially massive ramifications. GWA88 (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to to Incumbent president François Hollande of the Socialist Party (PS) was eligible to run for a second term, but declared on 1 December 2016 that he would not seek reelection in light of low approval ratings, making him the first incumbent head of state of the Fifth Republic not to seek reelection, which happened five months before the election. BugGhost🦗👻23:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Gigantic news for sure, but I really don’t think we’d be posting this if it wasn’t the USA, and that’s not good enough for me.TheKip(contribs)22:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The global coverage, later arguments, and the firsthand experience of visiting the White House literally six hours after the news broke only to witness Australian, British, Indian, and Turkish news crews on site, not even just Americans, has made me realize how ridiculous this sentiment was. Change to post-posting support. TheKip(contribs)03:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gigantic news for sure, but I really don’t think we’d be posting this if it wasn’t the most powerful country on the planet yeah okay dude Scu ba (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
US politics have wide-ranging repercussions on the rest of geopolitics as a whole. It is hardly surprising that this is world news. This isn't a US-centric, favored news story by any means. — ThatCopticGuyping me! (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whether or not there is precedent, one must acknowledge the global political influence of this event. This one is a no-brainer. Ludicrous (talk)
Weak support I get the argument that it was an event in the lead up to the election which is why I am not fully supportive of it, however I believe that it is notable due to the nature of this election cycle being so widely covered internationally. News outlets everywhere have been talking about how Biden has stepped down and even in the lead up to it most major international news outlets were publishing articles about his current state. Joecompan (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Yes it has significant global implications, but so did other events that fail to get posted. This also happened 56 years ago, or 14 election cycles ago. I’m not going to oppose it but this is a bit UScentric.108.58.27.76 (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support It’s the 1st time that an American presidential candidate has withdrawn after securing enough delegates to win their party’s nomination, so it’s a unique event. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many if not most national news organizations around the world will mention this event, as it is an impactful. This fits "in the news" criteria. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support alt2 or alt3 To anyone who thinks this does not have an effect beyond US borders, consider this: this may result with Donald Trump being re-elected. Do you think that won't have world-wide repercussions? -- llywrch (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support some blurb, and this is not being posted as an electoral result, it is being posted as news. The literal top story across the entire god damn world lol. Israel is at war and it’s the top story at Haaretz (Hebrew and English) and Times of Israel for example. Top story at Le Monde (English and French). Top story at Corriere della Sera (Italian). This is very obviously in the news, the article is well developed. This is a no brainer. nableezy - 00:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Seems like a case of systemic bias. Someone who was hoping to become his party's nominee is no longer running for the nomination; this is a couple steps removed from the election itself. It's hard to imagine we would be considering this for ITN if it happened in any other country. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 00:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mx. Granger "hoping to become his party's nominee is no longer running for the nomination". This is an extreme understatement. He had no one against him, he is the incumbent. The fact he would have became the party's nominee was a forgone conclusion. Until he was pressured to drop out that is, but if he wanted to continue he would have got the nomination. NamelessLameless (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (slight preference for Alternative blurb VI, but all are acceptable) for what I'd hope would be obvious reasons. This is a not-quite-but-almost unique event in American politics. Incumbent presidents generally don't drop out at the 11th hour. Joe (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that we should include a link to the Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election page. Joe (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per previous commenters. In my opinion American internal politics are generally given undue weight on the front page and this is just another example.David Palmer//cloventt(talk)01:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whether people like it or not this has never happened in American history. Presidents have had their heads blown off. Presidents have died in office. Presidents have lost re-elections. Presidents have chosen not to seek re-election when their term ends… but never suspended their campaign 4 months before the election completely changing the entire election itself. Yes this is ITN. Trillfendi (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. Toshowcase quality Wikipedia content on current events. Topoint readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.
I note that this appears to me to lack such objectives as, "Taking some kind of stand that, people on the English-language Internet focus on US politics and current events too much (a perhaps relevant observation here is that the US is by far the most-populous country where English is the dominant first language) and therefore, to Send A Message we pointedly are going to refuse taking note of those things at times. However we're not going to tell you, the general public who has no idea about the 'back rooms and hallways' of the project where decisions get made, that this is in fact what we are doing. Thus any of you showing up at the main page, might scratch your heads briefly thinking it's a bit curious that one section there doesn't mention that, but hey whatever there's probably some issue with the site or something", before hitting your favorite search engine to seek more information on the topic.
I also note a lack of such purposes as, "Not mentioning the 'internal processes' and events which lead up to a general election in a country, but solely noting the ultimate outcome, to convey some sort of message that the final outcome is the only thing people ought to focus on". Or, that, "Domestic political events are not a matter of concern to ITN and its readers". I confess I find this reasoning especially perplexing: are not all elections and changes of government within a single country, definitionally, "domestic political events"? About the only political occurences ITN would note under this standard would be international ones, such as elections to the European Parliament and those within transnational bodies such as the United Nations and African Union. A consistent application of this principle seems to me to extend well beyond things like elections; if a civil war broke out in the US tomorrow, the same principle, to me, would seem to logically imply ITN making no mention of that as well, it being purely a domestic political squabble. (The lead sentence of civil war: A civil war[a] is a war between organized groups within the same state (or country).) --Slowking Man (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This is clearly a unique event, and we shouldn't bind ourselves to conventions. I can understand why we don't want to document every campaign event, but this isn't just some candidate dropping out. The incumbent US president and presumptive Democratic nominee dropped out after the primary process, later than any presidential nominee in history. This is a monumental shift in US politics. Use common sense. BappleBusiness[talk]01:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: In Argentina we have seen even weirder things happen, such as the likely candidate Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (basically, the local Trump) refusing to run in 2019 at the last minute and appointing instead a candidate with a tweeter post... a candidate that, up to that point, was a vocal critic of her. And in 2023, the president refused to run for reelection (just like Biden now) and the candidate was instead Sergio Massa... the minister of economy of a country just about to fall to hyperinflation, running for president (and he even had chances). And none of that circus was featured ITN. I doubt either was even proposed, because it would be a SNOW close. In comparison, what Biden is doing here is trivial. Cambalachero (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Let's not kid ourselves. This is NOT a run-of-the-mill campaign event. This is an unprecedented development that will shake the news cycle in the U.S. and around the world for the next week at least. I am honestly surprised that people are willing to let it slip because of a mere technicality. Zelkia1101 (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: Very notable event that the president of the United States decides midway through the campaign to drop out of the election. The last time this happened was in 1968. --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposed blurbs for now. Reading the above comments, it seems that a majority of supporters and American Wikipedians have to explain the timing, context, and detailed procedures of the US presidential election system in order to argue why this is significant for ITN. Because reading the proposed blurbs at face value, that significance is not really clear to those who currenty oppose or who are non-American Wikipedians. That is a bad sign. A more lengthy blurb would thus be required to include this level of detail--much longer than what would normally be on ITN I'm afraid. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who, not to toot own horn but, would judge myself pretty knowledgeable regarding US politics and government (hey ask me what I got on the AP US History exam ), a simple "Joe Biden, the incumbent president, withdraws from the 2024 election" is completely fine and accurately descriptive. Omit needless words: one important property of a blurb is it's supposed to be brief. Folks he is not going to now mount a new third party campaign (and if he actually does, we can blurb that as well if it gets sufficient news attention). If readers want more details that's why the links in the blurb are there, for said readers to follow to articles containing details. The links aren't there to just break up the monotony by splashing a little color around the text.
Unfortunately as generally occurs with any Potentially Controversial Topic where people have differing views (such as, what to write in sn ITN item), "consensus decision-making" fails here to bikeshedding: people express fifty different irreconcilable wishes of their own—there can only be one single blurb text and it's not going to be, every desired blurb all mashed together so everyone is happy—and thus without one or more people given power to make a binding decision, no one does anything and so status quo inertia "wins" by default. (And thus, all the people favoring that; "we should not do X and should do nothing" is a position just as much as "let's do X" is!) That is why every admin is cowering in a hole right now, because they all know if they post any blurb they will promptly have the anger of dozens of people displeased with their action trained upon them. Suggestion: perhaps a panel of three or so admins ought to take on making a decision on this ITM candidate, and all providing their rationale somewhere in public. Slowking Man (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not every admin (he writes after posting the article and reading the comments that came in after he started writing the rationale). But normalizing panels may not be a bad idea. Ed[talk][OMT]03:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timing is a key factor in a vast majority of news, is it not? The reason for notability is time. Comparing to 1968, as mentioned previously, LBJ dropped out months before the Democratic Party's nominating convention. That's news, but is the sort of "interparty politics" that we wouldn't post here. But it's really not interparty politics when we can reasonably conclude that whoever is nominated by the Democrats was/is going to finish at least 2nd, possibly 1st in the election. This has the potential to be a massive shake-up, and at minimum is not something that has happened before. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This is front-page news for Le Monde, The Guardian, the Sydney Morning Herald, the BBC and El Pais, and those are the only ones I bothered to check. All of them are running this as their main story. People saying that this is internal party politics in one country are missing the point. This is a momentous occasion in world politics, not just American politics. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The section is called In The News, and not just is this in the news, it IS the news, period. Everyone saying "internal US politics" is ignoring the fact that it's the top story everywhere else on Earth, too. -- Kicking222 (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In the end what matters is who wins the election. Call the scenario where Biden does not withdraw and Trump wins "Scenario A". Biden withdraws now, and (presumably) Harris becomes nominee. Trump wins anyway. Would the result be different from Scenario A? If not, then I don't see why this is worth posting. Banedon (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Posted a shortened alt6: In my view, the arguments that support posting this news have made much stronger points than those in opposition. I was particularly swayed by those who pointed out that Biden's decision has had truly substantial global coverage in some of the world's largest news outlets thanks to its ability to impact a large number of countries, all of which speak to WP:ITNSIGNIF. I would also highlight Slowking Man's ruminations about WP:ITNPURPOSE and how it relates to this story. Conversely, I did not see as many strong arguments in opposition—especially from those who opposed this based on it relating to a single country, which contravenes a very explicit bullet point in WP:ITNDONT. In addition to all that, while this is a consensus-gathering discussion, the pure numbers approach 2:1 in support (I counted 73 supports, including the nominator, vs. 34 opposes; please forgive me if I'm off by one or two.) Finally, the article currently has a single clarification needed tag, which is not major enough to prevent posting. Ed[talk][OMT]03:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the blurb itself: I shortened it to focus on Biden withdrawing from the entire campaign, as that got the news across without what I saw as unnecessary complexity. It could also be rephrased along the lines of our article and say that he "withdraws from the 2024 presidential election" rather than ending his campaign. I have no objection to any modification proposals here if soon, or please send them to WP:ERRORS if later. Ed[talk][OMT]03:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment – I've cast my eye over the discussion a couple of hours back but work pulled me back from looking at WP. I had come to the same conclusion as you, The ed17. Schwede6603:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I posted the image within half an hour of the announcement. It seemed rather probable to me that this would gain support. Schwede6604:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry and my bad. I'd only looked at the username when curious about who added the image and figured this was the other half of the story! Ed[talk][OMT]04:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of people that are not regulars on ITN boards (in other words, drawn here by popularity of the topic), voting counting is the last thing we should be doing. We also (as being discussed on the talk page) do not use the weight or breadth of coverage to make decisions of what ITN should post, in part being we are not newspapers and have a different emphasis on what is encyclopedically important, not what is important on the spot moment as the news media does. This whole situation is part of how broken WP is when it comes to NOTNEWS. We are meant to summarize, not detail, the news, and the fact that these articles have so much excessive on-the-spot detail, and the wide push to support this with claims that it is likely going to be important, is not how we should be writing the encyclopedia, nor the type of topics we should be featuring at ITN. It's why its stressed that ITN is not a news ticker, and that we have to keep fighting against systematic bias, of which this situation is a clear case that that was flat out ignored by most !voters. (several of the opposes are in this direction). — Masem (t) 04:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"in part being we are not newspapers and have a different emphasis on what is encyclopedically important, not what is important on the spot moment as the news media does" — but isn't decision on who will be running that most likely changes the outcome of president election in the most influential country in the world encyclopedically important? BilboBeggins (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most incumbents that does not seek reelection does not start by seeking reelection and then withdrawing 3 months before the due date,
That actually doesn't happen as often as one might think. I don't recall any of the G20 member states having a similar thing in recent memory, at least those with Presidential systems.
Let's be real, the President of the United States is just more influential and significant than almost any other state. If Xi Jinping suddenly declares he won't seek a fourth term a few months before the CPC Congress or if Narendra Modi suddenly announces he won't be running for reelection in his seat, that will also be posted.
Pull The impact of Biden not running for the presidency is the same as him not being elected. We should post only when someone is being elected into the office. – robertsky (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Honest query. Is it a principle of ITN, apparently unstated, that, "ITN does not post any events relating to heads of govt other than the (re)election of an occupant, no matter how many readers might care"? (I presume it's implied that the death, resignation, or removal of a current occupant would also qualify.) Could you elaborate on how that relates to the purpose of ITN, which is things such as, To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news? Thank you ahead of time for responding; I appreciate hearing others share their views, even if we may not agree entirely. Slowking Man (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to elections, what ITN cares is who is occupying the office next. Him pulling out is as good as not the person going to be occupying the office in the next four years. Other than the announcement are there any impact in the next 4 months before the next person takes over from this that we know of at the moment? No. – robertsky (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay again, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to ask, where is this statement of principle found, exactly: what ITN cares is who is occupying the office next? A text search of WP:ITN for "election", "politic", and "office" finds (excluding the current ITN blurbs) two occurences of "election", both in this paragraph: Opposing a specific story merely because one opposes all stories of that type (such as elections, or sports, or disasters) do not often generate agreement from the community. This also holds true for arguments based on similar stories which have coincidentally appeared recently, such as multiple elections on the same day, etc. Please assess and comment on the merits of each story on its own accord, not in relation to other similar stories. I'm afraid I don't find where that ITN principle is stated. Could you help me here? (Also, this is in fact relevant to who is occupying the office next, is it not? This means it is all-but-certain to be someone other than Biden.) Slowking Man (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support per IAR. I would like the blurb to be reworded though; you campaign for president (more accurately, for election as president), not for the presidential election. Davey2116 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support While I understand some may be concerned about bias towards U.S. news, the outcome of the U.S. election has a clear and significant international effect, unlike elections in nearly every other country. An incumbent U.S. president pulling out of the race, at this point, is historic and deserves a blurb. Biden's health has dominated the news for weeks, resulting in today's announcement, which is of course the top story around the world. Johndavies837 (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support. As I said earlier this has not happened since 1968 with Johnson (50 YEARS). Politics is what shapes the world and it dictates laws and alliances. If we can post a blurb about a guy from Vietnam who most people under 30 haven't heard about, then we can post about Joe. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support. This changes course of presidential campaign, and most likely the outcome, which in iftrslf influences world politics. This is the top news now. To arguments about Argentina and other countries not getting blurb — if you had proposed it then, maybe it would have been considered. And USA presidential campaign is unlike others, it basically lasts two years and withdrawing as soon before formal announcement of being nominated, and indeed before election is very notable. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support. Agree with the argument for posting this. It is difficult to apply the 'normal' rules in this sort of election cycle and these sorts of times. Carcharoth (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In response to the prior day's Houthi drone attack on Tel Aviv, Israeli airstrikes hit oil refineries and power stations in the Yemeni port of Al Hudaydah, killing six people and injuring over eighty others. (Al Jazeera)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Wait to see if it leads to any further escalation - if not, this doesn’t seem too different than the Israeli retaliation after the Iranian drone attack, which ended up being the end of things with that, and that wasn’t posted either. TheKip(contribs)18:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PoliceinDhaka, Bangladesh, ban all public rallies and protests in the city and impose a nationwide curfew, one day after protestors set fire to government buildings in the city. (Al Jazeera)(Reuters)
At least one person is killed and ten others are injured when a kamikaze drone strikes central Tel Aviv, Israel, near the United States embassy. The Houthis claim responsibility for the attack, and also issue an announcement that that they will be providing details on a planned military operation on Tel Aviv soon. (The Times of Israel)(Axios)
Thirty-six people are rescued after fires break out onboard the São Tomé and Príncipe-flagged tanker Ceres I and Singapore-flagged tanker Hafnia Nile following a collision near Pedra Branca, Singapore. The remaining 26 Ceres I crew members remain onboard to conduct fire-fighting operations. (The Straits Times)(CNA)
The Minsk Regional Court in Belarus, in a secretive trial, sentences a German national Rico Krieger to death over alleged crimes including terrorism and mercenary activity. (DW)
ATunisian court sentences opposition party leader Lotfi Mraïhi [fr], a potential presidential candidate, to eight months in prison on a charge of vote buying, and also bans Mraïhi from running in presidential elections. (Reuters)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
American congressional representative from Houston. Will update with a proper news source once available - CNN reported it live just minutes ago. TheKip(contribs)03:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, barring maybe the sitting House Speaker, a single congressperson doesn’t come particularly close to the level of a blurb. TheKip(contribs)07:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment 1 statement needs citations; once that statement is either sourced or removed, then this can be posted. Jaguarnik (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Support all statements have been provided with a statement. The article should be good to go.Jaguarnik (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support on notability, notable and far beyond the scope of the ongoing war (the request for the case was registered by the ICJ in January 2023). I'm afraid the "Reactions" section might be a bit too unbalanced, as the vast majority of the people quoted are Israeli politicians. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability particularly because the ruling says Israel "should put an end to its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, desist from creating new settlements, and evacuate those already established." Currently, the formatting of the reactions section is suboptimal, and should be broken into subsections; for example, see the South Africa's genocide case against Israel article. Gödel2200 (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat oppose on quality only - the "Oral Presentation" and "Reactions" sections, as typical, are just lists of any thrown reaction to this ruling and should be neither trying to be complete nor simply presented as a list. The Oral Presentations should likely be made into a narrative to describe the major points made by the countries as a group, for example, not how each country presented. Also, if we can indicate that this is a non-binding verdict (because Israel, nor the US for that matter have signed onto the ICJ recognition) in the blurb, that would be helpful. --Masem (t) 02:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support And for once I have no concern with the list-y sections. The first is a part of the court proceedings, right? And it's well-written even if it looks like flag soup from a glance. The reactions is not the best, but it's less "X from Country said thoughts and prayers" and more relevant people reflecting on material consequences. Do I like the bullet layout for the reactions? Not particularly, but (even considering the page protection) it seems like a valid way to stop that section becoming a repository for unsubstantial responses. Kingsif (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the problem with the court proceedings is that we don't normally document cases to that level. When and where they happened, sure, and the broad scope of the arguments, but just listing what each country said without further context is not really helpful. — Masem (t) 04:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominal support: Significant ruling from the ICJ, but as we did not post previous ICJ rulings on the conflict, I am not sure whether there is a precedent for posting this either. Tofusaurus (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent ICJ case proposed for posting was the South Africa v Israel genocide case in January, but iirc that was a preliminary ruling and was also considerably more weak in content (basically politely asked Israel to not commit genocidal acts, and politely asked Hamas to release the hostages), so it ultimately didn't develop consensus to post. By comparison, this is a far more concrete ruling, and this case has been running since long before the war broke out anyways. TheKip(contribs)05:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Israel isn't is part of this system and the court has no way to enforce its rulings, the impact should be as minimal as when another uninvolved party declares as much. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Blurb due to his notability as (former Vietnamese president until 2021 and as) General Secretary until today, being the highest-ranking leader and basically holding the power in the country. 🔥Jalapeño🔥Stupid stuff I did13:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the article suggests why he would be a major figure. Just simply holding a major political position is not sufficient for this determination. We need details of how he was influential and the like. — Masem (t) 14:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"During his tenure, Trọng pursued a wide anti-corruption campaign, implicating numerous senior officials to a degree unprecedented in Vietnamese political history. His foreign policy, known as "bamboo diplomacy", sought to balance Vietnam's relations with both the United States and China. Trọng is considered one of the most influential Vietnamese leaders since Hồ Chí Minh." Directly from the article's lead. Have you read it, per chance? 🔥Jalapeño🔥Stupid stuff I did14:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that is truly that significant (and it could be, I don't know), there should be far more commentary around this topic, typically in a type of Legacy or Impact section though it doesn't necessarily need to be there. It cannot be just a demonstration of a factual account of his role in the government. — Masem (t) 16:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Just simply holding a major political position is not sufficient for this determination." Haven't we always blurbed world leaders, though? Trong led his country of over 100 million people for 13 years, and his governance was evidently consequential. Kurtis(talk)00:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Considering the position of General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam is the powerful leadership position in Vietnam and under his tenure witnessed the increase of international standing of Vietnam when it comes to diplomacy such as the country's relations between superpowers like China, Russia and the United States. Toadboy123 (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb I think any incumbent world leader that dies in office should be blurbed. Article looks good and IMO two cn tags shouldn't prevent it from getting posted. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Succession What matters most is the person that is in charge now. According to the Reuters report, President Tô Lâm has now assumed those duties in an acting capacity, pending a party decision on what to do next. We should blurb both the death and handover together. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The PM of Vietnam article says that the PM is the head of govt. & the President of Vietnam article says that the President is the head of state, but neither of those positions is considered the most powerful official in Vietnam. The General Secretary article says that the General Secretary is the most powerful official in Vietnam (& that person is sometimes the President as well). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In communist countries, as communist party is the sole ruling party, the general secretary is in charge of running the party structures across the country while prime minister in general is responsible for running the cabinet and governmental ministries of the country - Toadboy123 (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb As per above, also support posting his successor when the time comes, or adding to the blurb that Tô Lâm succeeds him as acting GS Sharrdx (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb He was the most powerful leader in the country with a long tenure, serving from 2011 to 2024. He died in office which is pretty notable since he was serving a record-breaking third term. Vnsg304 (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle Worthy of ITN for sure, but only issues on quality, as the article is short. Then again, at the time this comment is written, July 2024 global cyber outages article contains pretty much everything that is know about the issue, so... Melmann08:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on significance, oppose on article quality The subject is definitely ITN-worthy, but the articles is not, being essentially just a poorly-curated list of specific individual impacts. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support With airlines grounded and medical services restricted, this is huge. I've been expecting global dependence on the internet and such software to become an existential risk comparable with the pandemic and here we are. Picking up the pieces will take some time, the impact outweighs the uncertainty. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-post comment: Just so you know, I've added a few live-blogs on the article's talk page, so you can use them to help expand the page and make it less patchy than it currently looks. Oltrepier (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is not of great quality. Yes, it ticks the long-enough box, but its just listing events and has no real structure or narrative to it. This is not representive of how we normally write articles on news coverage for an encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 11:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As pointed out above, the article is not of sufficient quality and mostly presents a list of individual impacts. This was another bad posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It still has the problem that it just making a list of incidents, now grouped by field than by country. These articles should be written far more narratively, not trying to describe each singular incident since this was a clear global problem. — Masem (t) 02:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I am not asking for a pull, but I think the way this article started and even presently is is a systemic problem of how we are not writing about current events in an encyclopedic style but instead just compiling every case without thought of a cohesive article that would be how we would have written about the same event if we were doing this ten years after the fact. This has become far too common and widespread and we need to be demanding a bit more editorial considerations rather just listifying parts of an event. Masem (t) 12:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The death toll from the protests in Bangladesh increases to 32, with the government shutting down internet access across the entire country, and protesters setting fire to the headquarters of the main state broadcasterinDhaka. (France 24)
Seven people from the same family, including three young children and a teenager, are killed, another is injured and thirty suffer smoke inhalation in an arson attack in Nice, France. (BBC News)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
American pianist and composer, one of her orchestral pieces was supposed to be played at the BBC Proms. 38. I tried to collect what I could find. Washington Post article is paywalled. First obit was dated 18 Jul, that's why I put her here. Help appreciated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated
The election of the head of the European Commission has been considered ITN-worthy in the past as head of government of a sui generis entity and as a major global political figure. Von der Leyen's article is in very good condition and, looking back in history, the re-election for a second term of an EC president is not that usual. We should remember also that 2024 European Parliament election failed to be included in Main Page in June. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability While not ITNR, the president of the European commission heads the executive branch of the EU, which I think is significant enough. The article currently has two cn's and an outdated tag. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question While bold article is in a good shape, but have we ever posted the election of the President of the EU before, let alone re-election? PrinceofPunjabTALK14:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically support, but oppose for now b/c the “Controversy over COVID-19 vaccine deal” section has an orange tag.Support It’s important enough for a blurb & von der Leyen‘s article looks great now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaylockjam10 I have hidden that section because it may violate the WP:BLP, inasmuch as she is not directly involved in the case and is not a direct party to the judicial process. Please, take a look at the article. Thanks. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The portrait would definitely make more sense, in context, than the currently posted smiley from Scranton. That's other stuff, though, and it exists. Not the best argument, historically. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stale This item has gone stale as the oldest item on the main page is from 19 July. But I've somehow lost my "close discussion" link so can't close this properly. Schwede6602:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose The article says that "The country's national grid and its airports were shut down on 3 June 2024, as were banks, hospitals and schools...The following day, the NLC and TUC suspended the strike, pending talks with the government over raising the minimum wage.", but it does not indicate that a situation like that was occurring at the time the deal was agreed upon. I think that this would only warrant a blurb if something at the scale of what was happening on 3 June was also happening at the time of the resolution. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Not ready. There are two CN tags, the one about raising four children definitely needs addressing before it can be posted. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Regrettable oppose On quality. Article needs ref work. I would support a blurb once issues are fixed, but I feel that the article needs a legacy section or something to reflect the impact he had on the comedy world. Obits are calling him a legend and the "dean" of deadpan comedy. I'm sure something reflecting how he influenced a generation of comedians/had a massive impact on the comedy world would be beneficial. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know him mainly from his original monologues which were often played on BBC Radio. It's easy to imagine a similar incredulous skit about Wikipedia – "and you let anyone edit it!?" The article is fine - mostly the usual busywork remains but that's not significant. I have clarified that his famous stammer was natural, not affected, and that's the sort of detail that actually matters. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready. This is still orange tagged with many explicit inline CN tags and unmarked unsourced paragraphs. Thryduulf (talk)
Oppose outstanding number of cn tags needs to be resolved, Although, I would have been okay with a blurb but article's quality won't allow it. PrinceofPunjabTALK13:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Japanese Prime MinisterFumio Kishida formally apologizes to 130 victims of forced sterilization under the Eugenics Protection Law which was declared unconstitutional on July 3, and approves compensation measures for more than 25,000 affected victims and their relatives. (NHK)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose for now until something substantial happens. Protests are commonplace in every corner of the world and are not automatically ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The copyedit tag is a bit of a problem, but I think the article is in a good state overall. I think the correct date for this is probably July 16, when the Chhatra League fired on university students. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. Apart from a lot of poor prose, there are uncited statements (some contentious) together with a lot of "he said, she said" material which doesn't appear to match the sources. For example, the sentence In light of these events, the Prime Minister questioned the education of the protesters and described their behaviour as "very regrettable" is sourced to this, so the first part of the sentence is synthesis from the source, and the words "very regrettable" don't appear at all. Or this section In the early hours of 16 July, at around 12:15 am, members of the Chhatra League attacked Jahangirnagar University students using firearms is sourced to this in which firearms aren't mentioned. And this is just a couple of the English sources I've looked at, not being able to read Bengali which makes up at least half of the sources. Black Kite (talk)10:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over 100 deaths[1], total mobile internet shutdown, 7.5 million Bangladeshi diaspora can’t communicate with their relatives, they have no connection with their family and beloved one, don’t know even if they are death or alive, [2] military curfew imposed [3][4]!! We guys can wait and carry on other best/important things!! Pathetic world!! 2A0A:A546:7913:0:A5AA:AB38:D931:A81D (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality while it is no doubt newsworthy due to it's impact and massive death toll, the article is a mess. It has multiple orange tags, timeline section needs to be rewritten and Gallery section needs captions. PrinceofPunjabTALK14:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support on notability such incidents are rare occurrence in Oman and majority of deaths are of foreign citizens therefore it is notable but article currently needs a bit expansion. PrinceofPunjabTALK05:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What’s with the sudden increase in these oddly-worded/near-nonsensical votes popping up on ITN/C lately? This is at least the fourth or fifth vote I’ve seen from an IP in the last few weeks that could’ve conceivably been AI-generated. TheKip(contribs)07:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality as target article’s barely longer than a stub. Weak support on notability, given the rarity of such attacks in Oman. TheKip(contribs)07:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality due to the length of the article. Also, the article should make it clear that these events are rare in Oman. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, with no comment on quality (haven't read the article yet). Oman is arguably the most peaceful country in the Middle East, so a massacre there—especially if it was done by ISIS or any other terrorist organization—is highly notable. Kurtis(talk)02:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Who, what, where, when, why and how are answered. It'd be best if we mention that Oman has never suffered an ISIS attack before. Bremps...02:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The mosque is not notable. None of the people involved are notable. There have yet to be any demonstrated widespread societal effects. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article does not do a good job of explaining this in context. The fact that the attack took place in Oman does not seem significant as this is not a secular political issue. It seems to be a traditional expression of religious sectarian violence which goes back centuries. See Terrorist attacks during Ashura. Insofar as ISIS was involved, this makes it common rather than rare. See List of terrorist incidents in 2024 in which the count for ISIS seems to be about 11 for the year so far. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
TLDR only two of the eight candidates who wanted to run against Kagame were allowed to run, and Kagame allegedly won 99% of the vote. Bremps...04:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This was a sham election and the article does not show that. Also, WP:ITNELECTIONS mentions Changes in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government but he has been in his office for almost two and a half decades now. PrinceofPunjabTALK04:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current blurb mentions the general election as a whole, which includes both the parliamentary and presidential ones. It explicitly mentions the reelection of Kagame as he is the executive, but it certainly could also mention the results in the parliament. Gödel2200 (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per PrinceOfPunjab. If it does end up posted, I’d support using the “announced as the winner of the election” wording we’ve had for previous elections of dubious fairness. TheKip(contribs)07:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While probably not "free and fair", the election did actually take place and the people did vote for Kagame, so this election is covered by ITN/R and we've generally always posted it in the past. It might be good for the "aftermath" section to mention any international organisations saying it wasn't free and fair, but I'm not sure there are any yet. No doubt when that happens, we can update the article but for now I think it's good to go. I've also updated the results to show the provisional figures for parliament. — Amakuru (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we don't know how many people actually voted for Kagame. Significant election fraud is not out of the question. It would require sources to claim this election is different from the many sham elections held in Rwanda since 1994. (t · c) buidhe23:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article sort of explains why the election was not free and fair - i.e. real opponents of Kagame are barred from even standing in the first place, the other "candidates" are Government-approved ones to ensure the appearance of democracy - but it should be (and needs to be) a lot clearer. Currently a casual reader would assume that Kagame is enthusiastically backed by nearly 100% of the Rwandan population, whereas in reality the claim that turnout was 98% is ... fanciful. Black Kite (talk)11:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Amakuru. Wikipedia gives cited facts so readers can draw their own conclusions. This article meets NPOV adequately already, and when more refs regarding its lack of fairness should come, those would be welcome too. Jiaminglimjm (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Amakuru, although I do believe the election was unfair it's still a election which was voted for. We should add sources saying if the election was fair or not when they come Sharrdx (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaylockjam10 @Chaotic Enby @Andrew Davidson @PrinceofPunjab @Black Kite I've added more to the article hopefully demonstrating more critically the way the election was not free and fair. Let me know if the article still needs more work in that department. I've also updated the altblurb with more details & with slightly different wording (including the results of the parliamentary election). Let me know if that needs more work as well (in particular - is it too long for ITN standards?) Staraction (talk | contribs) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Although notable and the article is looking better, I oppose the current blurb per PrinceofPunjab and The Kip. The current blurb is misleading by omission. It misleads the reader into a sense of equivalency by using the same terminology we have used for actual free and fair elections. I do support altblurb. FlipandFlopped ツ01:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability—A glorified referendum on Kagame's continued dictatorship it is, and the blurb should make this clear, but it's an actual election in a de jure "democracy". It merits a mention on the main page. Kurtis(talk)02:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "declared winner" I think the following is enough:
The only three presidential candidates allowed to run were the same as from 2017, where Kagame won with more than 98% of the vote. DW described the election as a "re-run of the non-contest in 2017."[27] Amnesty International criticized the censorship of opposition in the race as having "a chilling effect and limits the space for debate for people of Rwanda". The Independent described the election as "widely criticised as unfair."[4]
It's fine as is I would think. I'm not a fan of editorialising in blurbs, and while this argument comes up time and time again here for Russian, Rwandan and other elections I don't think we've ever deviated from the simple statement of who won and leaving the detail to the article. And therefore it would be wrong to carve out an exception for this specific case. If there's a prior precedent then please point it out to me. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment here's an easy solution, just mention the percentage of the vote (99%) that he got, that should tell everyone with an iq of above like 3 what that election was like Kasperquickly (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir Putin is announced to be the winner of the Russian presidential election, securing a fifth term.
That’s still too weak for my taste & I’d write it as “announced as” instead of “announced to be”, but it’s better than the current blurb for the Rwandan election. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax[http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
), a simple "Joe Biden, the incumbent president, withdraws from the 2024 election" is completely fine and accurately descriptive. Omit needless words: one important property of a blurb is it's supposed to be brief. Folks he is not going to now mount a new third party campaign (and if he actually does, we can blurb that as well if it gets sufficient news attention). If readers want more details that's why the links in the blurb are there, for said readers to follow to articles containing details. The links aren't there to just break up the monotony by splashing a little color around the text.
