m Signing comment by Jim Michael 2 - "valid discussion" |
|||
Line 881: | Line 881: | ||
*May 2 – Russia announces it may be pulling out of the International Space Station as soon as two years from now, because of the sanctions imposed on the nation after its invasion of Ukraine. |
*May 2 – Russia announces it may be pulling out of the International Space Station as soon as two years from now, because of the sanctions imposed on the nation after its invasion of Ukraine. |
||
** As per section on the talk page, it's an announcement not an event. |
** As per section on the talk page, it's an announcement not an event. |
||
[[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 17:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jim Michael 2|contribs]]) </span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
[[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 17:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jim Michael 2|contribs]]) </span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:None of the entries you've mentioned will be deleted. Can you and Jim Michael stop trying to ruin this page by insisting that literally every f***ing thing must be deleted. I don't think you've any idea how '''''infuriating''''' it is – for me to spend large chunks of my time carefully researching and adding entries (all of which are relevant and notable), filling in the references, etc. – and then coming on here and seeing some random little editor bleating and whining that ''eVeRyThIng mUsT nOw bE dEleTed''. It's getting to the point where I'm going to stop contributing here, because it seems like a waste of time and effort. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 18:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:33, 11 May 2022
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hawkins has no individual international notability, a bar by which we've excluded several other band members who've died in the 2020s. Without that limitation, a huge number would be included in main year articles. Many bands have a large number of members over their existence; double figures isn't rare. Amount of media coverage & number of fans aren't reliable measures of notability. He's never included in lists of best musicians, or even best rock musicians. No-one other than Foo Fighters' fans would claim him to have been among the greats. Second-most important member of a RRHOF band doesn't count for much. It's an Americentric hall of fame whose nominees are decided by a small number of people who aren't musicians, so it shouldn't be used an inclusion bar. Jim Michael (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t know how many times it has to be said, as has been said here, but “individual international notability” for members of internationally notable bands is not a criteria we use, or ought to use. The Foo Fighters have been among the most internationally notable bands of the last 25 years, and it would be ridiculous to exclude the most important members, in this case someone who was recognised as the most notable and significant member after Dave Grohl. As for your point about the RRHOF, it’s used as a secondary criteria rather than a primary one for reasons such as those you have outlined, but it nevertheless remains recognised as the highest indicator of notability, significance and success for rock musicians - from America or otherwise. Strongly oppose any move to exclude Hawkins. TheScrubby (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- What do you recommend as the inclusion bar for band members? Jim Michael (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have already made my recommendation, which is that they should be included if the band is internationally notable and they played an essential, central role in the band achieving said notability (be it in helping shaping shape the sound, or by simply being a member of the founding and/or classic line-ups of the band). Which is why using the RRHOF can sometimes be a good secondary criteria as in the majority (albeit there are exceptions, as I’ve detailed before on this talk page) of inductions they only induct the core members while excluding members of lesser significance (typically members who joined later on, after the band’s main period of notability and relevance). A lot of the time it does come down to it being case by case, but in cases like Hawkins it should be a pretty clear cut, uncontroversial case in favour of inclusion. While someone like, for example, Franz Stahl (to use another Foo Fighters example) should be a pretty clear cut, uncontroversial case where we would exclude and relegate to Year In Topic. TheScrubby (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sustained and in-depth international coverage, as we would do for anything else. Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Using that as the bar means that we'd include some people who are merely popular rather than internationally notable, including reality show contestants, socialites, models, people who have a cult following & those who are famous for being famous. If Gene Hackman & Kim Kardashian were to die on the same day, the latter would receive far more media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly can't think of any "reality show contestants, socialites or models" that we would post unless they'd become internationally notable for another reason. In the end we have to accept that (a) popular and internationally notable are not mutually exclusive, and (b) any rule we make will almost certainly have exceptions and therefore we need to depend on the breadth and depth of coverage n the media. Black Kite (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Using that as the bar means that we'd include some people who are merely popular rather than internationally notable, including reality show contestants, socialites, models, people who have a cult following & those who are famous for being famous. If Gene Hackman & Kim Kardashian were to die on the same day, the latter would receive far more media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- What do you recommend as the inclusion bar for band members? Jim Michael (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think the global (and it is global, literally) front-page coverage of Hawkins' death (it's still on the front page of the BBC website, O Globo, Süddeutsche Zeitung, the NYT etc. 24 hours later) is a pretty good indicator of the notability we're dealing with here. Black Kite (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I doubt the coverage of his death is global; I guess it's the Americas, Europe, Australia & NZ. No-one's disputing that the band have substantial international notability, but he doesn't. The high level of media coverage is because it's a type of story that the media love. A rock musician intoxicated by various substances dies suddenly, whilst abroad, in his hotel room, during a tour. Dying naturally in old age, years after retiring, would not have given him a tenth of that media coverage. The over-representation of entertainers & sportspeople in main year articles is fan-driven & biased, which is why we need clear inclusion criteria for them. Jim Michael (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- To be fair, "The Americas, Europe, Australia and NZ" is half the globe to begin with, but the story is still rumbling on well over 24 hours later (due to the medical analysis) in South Africa, India, The Philippines and so forth. Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Is the coverage due more to his early demise and the way he died ?
- Let’s assume that Hawkins was instead 80 years and died peacefully in his sleep. Would the coverage be the same because of his notability ? Jojoju1998 (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- To be fair, "The Americas, Europe, Australia and NZ" is half the globe to begin with, but the story is still rumbling on well over 24 hours later (due to the medical analysis) in South Africa, India, The Philippines and so forth. Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I doubt the coverage of his death is global; I guess it's the Americas, Europe, Australia & NZ. No-one's disputing that the band have substantial international notability, but he doesn't. The high level of media coverage is because it's a type of story that the media love. A rock musician intoxicated by various substances dies suddenly, whilst abroad, in his hotel room, during a tour. Dying naturally in old age, years after retiring, would not have given him a tenth of that media coverage. The over-representation of entertainers & sportspeople in main year articles is fan-driven & biased, which is why we need clear inclusion criteria for them. Jim Michael (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support inclusion Pretty notable and his death is gaining international coverage. Foo Fighters is classified as a vital article at Wiki so that means there's some influential-merit to the band henceforth Hawkins for being part of this influential band. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Strongly support inclusion The whole world is talking about his death. He clearly deserves a mention for 2022. I am continually amazed by some of the unbelievably strict and inflexible editors on here, who seem to get some sort of psychological kick out of deleting everything. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Okay. 1. If Ringo Starr were to die right now, would he be included because of his association with the Beatles ? Or his own individual notability ( which is quite high, higher than Hawkins) ?
- 2. International Coverage does not equal International notability or else we would have had Bob Saget on the list ( which almost everyone rejected ).
- 3. At what level and point does a band’s collective notability help boost a band member’s individual notability? Or vice versa ? Was Taylor Hawkins a crucial member of the Band he was in ? The band leader ? The most important part of the piece ? I don’t know. I’m not a rock expert. Jojoju1998 (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- We posted Neil Peart a short while back, a death which didn't get anything like the international coverage, so I don't believe this is anything out of the ordinary. We would of course post Ringo Starr, in the same way as we posted Charlie Watts last year. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. But would we include Starr because of his Beatles affiliation or his own career ? Jojoju1998 (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also Neil Pearlt died of natural causes ( from a Brain tumor ) which doesn't garner alot of attention.
- For Hawkins's case, it seems as if the coverage is because of the way he died, not his notability neccsarily. And he died in another country. 2601:204:CF80:7440:6041:FEF1:9456:6015 (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I should add that I am " Jojoju1998". 2601:204:CF80:7440:6041:FEF1:9456:6015 (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the circumstances of his death have greatly increased the level & length of the reporting of it. He's far less notable than Watts, whose death received far less media coverage. The coverage of Hawkins' death is mostly about the specifics of it, rather than his greatness, talent etc. Most of this section makes it seem like he was a household name. Even if he was, that wouldn't qualify him. Mention his name in a year's time to people other than Foo Fighters' fans & people with an intense interest in rock music & most won't know who you're talking about. Jim Michael (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure we can't use "most people won't have heard of him/her" as a metric, because that applies to the majority of the people on the Deaths list. Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- A lot of this discussion and the arguments made by Jim Michael and Jojoju comes from the assumption that individual international notability for band members is a set criteria, which as I’ve expressed multiple times through is a deeply problematic criteria proposal that would exclude far too many musicians who were an important part of their band. Media coverage or the manner of passing are not why Hawkins should be included either. When it comes down to it, Hawkins was a very long-serving, integral member of the Foo Fighters - one of the most internationally notable bands of the last quarter century - and the most recognised and prominent member after Grohl; he was a member of the band’s classic line-ups, and as such was inducted as part of them into the RRHOF (if he wasn’t an integral member of the band, they wouldn’t have inducted him with them). All of this is enough to get him over the line, and the imposition of an absurd “individual international notability for band members” criteria would exclude too many vital and important musicians whose notability were absolutely intertwined with the bands they became famous with. Excluding anyone on that basis would potentially leave out and/or significantly under-represent to a farcical degree key members of a great many internationally notable bands/groups. TheScrubby (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure we can't use "most people won't have heard of him/her" as a metric, because that applies to the majority of the people on the Deaths list. Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the circumstances of his death have greatly increased the level & length of the reporting of it. He's far less notable than Watts, whose death received far less media coverage. The coverage of Hawkins' death is mostly about the specifics of it, rather than his greatness, talent etc. Most of this section makes it seem like he was a household name. Even if he was, that wouldn't qualify him. Mention his name in a year's time to people other than Foo Fighters' fans & people with an intense interest in rock music & most won't know who you're talking about. Jim Michael (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I should add that I am " Jojoju1998". 2601:204:CF80:7440:6041:FEF1:9456:6015 (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- We posted Neil Peart a short while back, a death which didn't get anything like the international coverage, so I don't believe this is anything out of the ordinary. We would of course post Ringo Starr, in the same way as we posted Charlie Watts last year. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I have different question relating to what you said earlier, Jim Michael. If this is the English language Wikipedia, does that mean anybody well-known enough in the English-speaking world can be included? Must they be known in nations where English is a secondary or foreign language? The Voivodeship King (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Being well-known isn't the inclusion bar, because many people are well-known but don't have much notability. If they have significant international notability, it doesn't matter which parts of the world they are from, are well-known in or have notability in. However, they must have an article in English. We include Mexican entertainer Vicente Fernández, whose notability & fans are mostly in Latin America. Jim Michael (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing this up. The Voivodeship King (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Players of team sports
What should be the level of international notability required for players of team sports? Playing for their national team? Scoring international goals? Winning important international competitions? Jim Michael (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- For footballers, whilst international games may be used as a guide to notability, you do have to be careful with that one as there have been some great players who happened by birth to play for fairly poor (or even very poor) international sides who would never win anything or even qualify for major finals. I know George Best is already dead, but that would be an example. George Weah might be another one (though he's automatically notable now as he's President of Liberia!). Black Kite (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- If you wanted some other examples, you could say Ferenc Puskás for older examples, or in modern times, Zlatan Ibrahimović, Mohamed Salah and Henrikh Mkhitaryan. The Voivodeship King (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's subjective, many would merit discussion but I don't think simple inclusion criteria will be appropriate across all 'team sports'. Some thoughts: Being captain of a successful national team would help, as would playing for multiple national teams or for leagues in multiple countries. Being a player who reaches international acclaim for their skill, or was important in the founding or development of the sport would be another point toward inclusion. Having their achievements retold in TV or Film (internationally, e.g. Cool Runnings!) having a future career (in pro sports) as an international team manager might be a factor. Some sports are more international, e.g. soccer has a much wider reach than ice hockey. JeffUK (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Many are added whose only international notability is having played for their national team. Some have scored international goals, but is that enough on its own? Jim Michael (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think so as default, I don't think '2022 was the year that the Belarusian 1973 champions league volleyball Goal Attack died' (Made up example) is *necessarily* relevant to the year as a whole; nor the information the reader will be looking for when they come to this page in the future. (Of course if that GA went on to become a member of parliament, or was the greatest netball player of all time, that might be different) There are thousands of international team games played every year, there would simply be too many to include all of them. We have Deaths in 2022 for that. JeffUK (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Many are added whose only international notability is having played for their national team. Some have scored international goals, but is that enough on its own? Jim Michael (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
What substantial international notability does he have? Jim Michael (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would say being one of the most internationally high profile German actors whose notability and work extends well beyond his home country is sufficient grounds for inclusion, though would be interesting to hear what others have to say. TheScrubby (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- He was one of many thousands of actors who've worked in multiple countries. He didn't have any significant acting awards outside Germany. Jim Michael (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's not unusual - most film awards are country-specific, so many American actors only have American awards, and so on. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Most film awards are country-centric rather than country-specific. For example, the Academy Awards have a pro-American bias, but many non-Americans have won them. Winning awards in only one country shows they're (primarily) domestic figures & therefore should be excluded from main year articles. Winning major awards in multiple countries proves substantial international notability & means that they should be included. We include Sidney Poitier because he won an Academy Award & a BAFTA Award. We include William Hurt because he won an Academy Award, BAFTA, Cannes Film Festival Award & a David di Donatello Award. Without those awards, they'd not be included. Jim Michael (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hardy Kruger does have honorary awards from other countries. Jojoju1998 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Most film awards are country-centric rather than country-specific. For example, the Academy Awards have a pro-American bias, but many non-Americans have won them. Winning awards in only one country shows they're (primarily) domestic figures & therefore should be excluded from main year articles. Winning major awards in multiple countries proves substantial international notability & means that they should be included. We include Sidney Poitier because he won an Academy Award & a BAFTA Award. We include William Hurt because he won an Academy Award, BAFTA, Cannes Film Festival Award & a David di Donatello Award. Without those awards, they'd not be included. Jim Michael (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's not unusual - most film awards are country-specific, so many American actors only have American awards, and so on. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- He was one of many thousands of actors who've worked in multiple countries. He didn't have any significant acting awards outside Germany. Jim Michael (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think he should be here; he was the lead in Sundays_and_Cybèle, an Oscar winning movie (which had a very small cast) for best foreign language film. He didn't just 'work in other countries' incidentally; he had the leading role in The_One_That_Got_Away_(1957_film) shot in the UK (which grossed £3 million in 1957),and a significant part in The_Flight_of_the_Phoenix_(1965_film) for which he was nominated for a Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor. Put together I think that makes him important enough to be included. JeffUK (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Notice of group resource
I would like to invite any interested editors here to join the task force for Contemporary History. One of our core goals is to highlight and promote the coverage of contemporary history as its own distinct area here at Wikipedia.
We differ from a simple effort to cover current events, in that we seek to provide the editing community with resources that would allow it to provide broad and comprehensive coverage of articles on contemporary history as a broad topical field, rather than simply on individual current events as they may occur.
to that end, we have set up articles such as 2020s in political history, which allow the whole editing community to adopt a broad scope in keeping wikipedia updated with broad historical trends, topics and events, as they occur, but also as they become relevant to the field of history overall. I hope that sounds helpful and worthwhile to you. you are welcome to join us in any way, or to offer any input or ideas that you may wish. we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Turns out that at least three of the people wanting Gottfried included were in reality just a single person.
|
---|
Does Gilbert Gottfried meet the international notability bar for inclusion? Like Bob Saget, Louie Anderson and Estelle Harris, he has some notability that’s primarily in his country of origin, but I don’t think he has the international notability to be included here. Indeed, I note that he wasn’t even included on 1955 until now - and of course the same applies there as it does here r.e. notability. TheScrubby (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Exclude. He is well known in the American comedy scene, but I doubt someone in Azerbaijan knows who he is. His notability in other words, is Americentric. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I am ehh on Gottfried. So what ever I will say in the next few paragraphs is more of general points and questions. 1. If we were to include this guy, then it makes Bob Saget fair game again. Of course, the vast consensus was against Saget being included and rightfully so. Both Saget and Gottfried are Comedian/Actor types. 2. We did include previous comedian/actors before 2020, people like Don Rickles, Robin Williams. Although one could make the argument that Since Robin Williams won an Oscar, and other internationally recognized awards, he was automatically included on that, not his comedic career. 3. Should we have separate guidelines for comedians since they do not have international awards ? How does one measure notability for comedians since there isn’t a international comedian award that I know ? 4. Finally, I agree with Jim and Scrubby on this, Well known films doesn’t mean notability. Or else you run the risk of excluding non Anglo Saxon actors. People from countries that are not the US, Or the UK would be excluded, simply because they are not known well in a dominant English speaking world. The recent French Actor who was included might not be well known to us English speaking people, but the guy has won awards in his home country of France and the greater European continent.
5. One final thing, the mention of Norm Macdonald is I think a false analogy. Mac Donald’s notability was predicated on his career as a Comedian not as a actor per se. And the consensus was towards inclusion. Gottfried’s notability even considering how international it is, is predicated on his acting career not his comedic career. That being said, Gottfried’s acting career itself I don’t think passes the smell test of notability. He did not win international agreed upon awards like an Oscar, Bafta, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.209.248 (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Bouquet has been added & removed. He won a European Film Award for Best Actor - does that make him notable enough to be included? Jim Michael (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have no objections to his inclusion, particularly given that he was also a two-time César recipient. TheScrubby (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
He should be included. We ought not to include only big Oscar winners here. In fact, we need to discuss who in the acting scene merits inclusion and set a standard. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Anyone who wins a major film festival or national film award. Oscar, Bafta, Cesar, Cannes Film, European Film, 73.12.209.248 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
More footballers
Wim Jansen, Leonel Sánchez & Freddy Rincón have international notability, but do they have enough? Jim Michael (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- They don't have ANY international notability much less "enough" - CountingStars500 (talk)
- The international notability of each of them includes playing in FIFA World Cups. However, we still lack specific inclusion bars for sportspeople, so there are going to be frequent disagreements in regard to them. Jim Michael (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- FIFA World Cups is a low-bar in regards to international notability. How has FIFA changed the trajectory of world events? Butterfly Effect? They kicked a ball and it led to some other event. - CountingStars500 (talk)
- If the premier international tournament in football is not a guideline to international notability, what is? The rest of your comment makes little sense. Black Kite (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm aware that it's the "premier international tournament in football" but that doesn't negate that they lack notability. I'm not anti-FIFA. When Cristiano Ronaldo or David Beckham dies they should be included 100% because they're notable internationally. - CountingStars500 (talk)
- So only modern-day players can be internationally notable? At what date is the cut off? How well-known do former players have to be before they pass your bar? Do they have to be on the level of Pele or Beckenbauer, or are those like Roberto Carlos, Cantona or (Bobby) Charlton - or for that matter Rincon - good enough? Black Kite (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes to inclusion: Pele, Roberto Carlos, Beckenbauer (barely), and Bobby Charlton once they die should be included. But, the ones listed who actually died in 2022 no. Olympic gold-medal athletes aren’t considered notable enough for inclusion by people here but random FIFA players are? Why not include gold medal Olympians if you are so keen on including FIFA players? The standards are contradictory. Notable people are excluded for being “not notable” and not notable people are considered “notable”. It’s like the “decision makers” on here don’t know the background of the people they deem “not internationally notable”, people who meet the standard of being notable that they themselves use. - CountingStars500 (talk)
- There are currently 14 Olympic gold medallists in the deaths section of this article, so I'm not sure what point you're making there. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- My point is that the decision makers (gatekeepers) here have contradictory standards deeming those not notable as notable and vice versa. Having 14-olympians on here proves that. Why are those specific ones notable but others are not? CountingStars500 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand the point you're making. Olympic individual gold medal winners are generally held to be internationally notable. Are there any that died in 2022 that are missing from this page? Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Are there any that died in 2022 that are missing from this page?" Quite possibly. Keep in mind there's thousands of gold medal olympians. It would be possible for a whole month to be filled purely with Gold-medal olympians. That can't be the standard used. Unless, you insist that Nobel winning Scientists, Politicians, Comedians, Businesspeople ,Actors, Musicians, etc who die shouldn't be included. CountingStars500 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- If individual gold medallists are added here they are retained. I suspect you are overestimating the number of gold medallists from the older Olympic years. In the 1950s and 1960s (years when we might expect deaths to be occurring now) there were only around 120 gold medals per tournament for individual entrants. As the Olympics is only every 4 years, that suggests 30-35 deaths per year, but you've got to remember that many entrants competed over multiple Olympics and won multiple medals, which would bring that figure down. As such, 14 so far this year seems reasonable. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Are there any that died in 2022 that are missing from this page?" Quite possibly. Keep in mind there's thousands of gold medal olympians. It would be possible for a whole month to be filled purely with Gold-medal olympians. That can't be the standard used. Unless, you insist that Nobel winning Scientists, Politicians, Comedians, Businesspeople ,Actors, Musicians, etc who die shouldn't be included. CountingStars500 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand the point you're making. Olympic individual gold medal winners are generally held to be internationally notable. Are there any that died in 2022 that are missing from this page? Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- My point is that the decision makers (gatekeepers) here have contradictory standards deeming those not notable as notable and vice versa. Having 14-olympians on here proves that. Why are those specific ones notable but others are not? CountingStars500 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are currently 14 Olympic gold medallists in the deaths section of this article, so I'm not sure what point you're making there. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes to inclusion: Pele, Roberto Carlos, Beckenbauer (barely), and Bobby Charlton once they die should be included. But, the ones listed who actually died in 2022 no. Olympic gold-medal athletes aren’t considered notable enough for inclusion by people here but random FIFA players are? Why not include gold medal Olympians if you are so keen on including FIFA players? The standards are contradictory. Notable people are excluded for being “not notable” and not notable people are considered “notable”. It’s like the “decision makers” on here don’t know the background of the people they deem “not internationally notable”, people who meet the standard of being notable that they themselves use. - CountingStars500 (talk)
- So only modern-day players can be internationally notable? At what date is the cut off? How well-known do former players have to be before they pass your bar? Do they have to be on the level of Pele or Beckenbauer, or are those like Roberto Carlos, Cantona or (Bobby) Charlton - or for that matter Rincon - good enough? Black Kite (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm aware that it's the "premier international tournament in football" but that doesn't negate that they lack notability. I'm not anti-FIFA. When Cristiano Ronaldo or David Beckham dies they should be included 100% because they're notable internationally. - CountingStars500 (talk)
- If the premier international tournament in football is not a guideline to international notability, what is? The rest of your comment makes little sense. Black Kite (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- FIFA World Cups is a low-bar in regards to international notability. How has FIFA changed the trajectory of world events? Butterfly Effect? They kicked a ball and it led to some other event. - CountingStars500 (talk)
- The international notability of each of them includes playing in FIFA World Cups. However, we still lack specific inclusion bars for sportspeople, so there are going to be frequent disagreements in regard to them. Jim Michael (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Jansen played in two World Cup finals as well as managing foreign teams and is I think, notable. Rincon is one of the most famous Colombian players of all time, not that you'd know it from his terrible article, but he played in the World Cup as well as for Real Madrid and Napoli - there is quite a bit of international coverage of his death in heavyweight sources i.e. UK USA Italy Spain. Sanchez I'm unconvinced by. Black Kite (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Rincón's Spanish article is much better. Jim Michael (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- They are all notable. Personally, if they've played/managed a national team and represented said team in the World Cup I think they do merit inclusion. I mean Leonel Sánchez is "recognized as one of the Best South American Footballers of the 20th Century" and a notable FIFA player, Jansen was a long time player for his national team and like, Sanchez and Rincon, represented his country in the World Cup. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- This disagreement shows why we need clear inclusion criteria, especially in regard to sportspeople. How much international notability is enough? Jim Michael (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- The way I see it, representing a national team during a FIFA World Cup event is already internationally notable. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are thousands of them, so I doubt think that's a high enough inclusion bar. Jim Michael (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, you'd need some sort of baseline - after all, someone could literally play one match, coming on a sub for the last 30 seconds of the game in a group stage game and reach that bar. In the end, I think you need to go back to the basics - is there sustained in-depth international coverage of that player (not only their death). Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are thousands of them, so I doubt think that's a high enough inclusion bar. Jim Michael (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- The way I see it, representing a national team during a FIFA World Cup event is already internationally notable. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- This disagreement shows why we need clear inclusion criteria, especially in regard to sportspeople. How much international notability is enough? Jim Michael (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Henry Plumb, Baron Plumb
Should Henry Plumb, Baron Plumb be included? Plumb was the 4th President of the European Parliament. I think being EU Parliament president does merit inclusion because being part of the EU and having some high position in the EU (Commissioner, Parliament Pres, Council Pres) is notable enough for inclusion especially since they essentially represent a variety of European countries. Note: David Sassoli who was also EU Parliament president was included in January. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- we should include him cuz we included David Sassoli back in January and there's a section on this very talk page about him, in that very section there is a consensus to include him. if we include Sassoli we should also include Plumb as well. 4me689 (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
A proposition to settle our editorial disagreements
Hello all,
I’m a fairly new user (joining January of last year with just under 650 edits). Some might recognize me from my more active contributions to the 2021 page. That aside, I have observed in my time editing that there have been numerous disagreements amongst my fellow editors about who merits inclusion and based upon what criteria. I have also noticed that it is generally the same small group of daily or near-daily editors having these discussions. I would love to hear the opinions of other editors on this site (are there thousands of us?) on their views regarding what this criteria should entail. This site should run on collective consensus of more than just the select few. Therefore, I propose the convocation of some kind of “editors’ council”, if you will, that is open to all users of Wikipedia and in which they can add their voice at a time that is convenient to them (meaning have the chat open for say, a week or two as opposed to a scheduled time) and we can all offer an opinion in an attempt to establish firm criteria on who merits inclusion in this article and who does not, or likewise wha events do or do not. I welcome admin involvement. That’s my own thoughts on the matter; hopefully I’m not overstepping myself with this suggestion. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's important to remember that whether or not a birth, death or event is significant enough for inclusion on this page is a subjective matter; there will therefore necessarily be disagreements over who or what should be included in the article, and 'defined criteria' goes against the Wikipedia policy of consensus building by editing, reverting and discussing. As long as those disagreements are dealt with in good humour and good faith, 'editorial disagreements' are not problem that need to be solved. I like this blurb from the 'In the News' page: "It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting." (remembering that editing is one way to achieve consensus)
- The normal pattern on here is that someone adds something in good faith, either it remains, or one of the regulars removes it because it doesn't meet the established criteria, and the original editor doesn't feel strongly enough to discuss it and the matter ends there. Rarely someone challenges the removal and it's discussed, I do think people should avoid closing down those discussion citing merely 'established consensus' but that's something that can be dealt with if it happens. JeffUK (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Depending on the subject the consensus can either be inconclusive or conclusive. like, there's a lot of subjects of media and other stuff. I can list a couple, like politics, Sport, Film, Television, Music, gaming, Literature, and more. below is the consensus of each thing.
- politics
- for world leaders, the consensus is straightforward. there is a high consensus to have every world leader mentioned in death sections in Main year articles, but for pictures, the ratio of them getting a picture is depending on if the person is one of 2 types of world leaders, head of state or head of government. the one that gets pictures more is head of government cuz they run the country, while head-of-state are just symbolic symbols. (i.e. like the flag, or coat of arms). for that reason the head of government are prioritized over heads of state in terms of pictures while both are included in death sections in Main year articles. however some countries has one person that are both a head of government and state (i.e. the United States, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, and the Philippines to name a few) in that case their leaders would definitely get pictures, (recent examples include U.S. president George H.W. Bush in 2018, and Indonesian president B. J. Habibie in 2019) both got pictures in their respective years of death. and some other countries have mix head of state and government meaning that the president has a lot of power and is separate from Parliament while the Prime Minister has some power but it's very miniscule compared to the president which has most of the power. (i.e. France, Russia, and Ukraine) in that context the president will get the picture over the prime minister (recent example would be French president Jacques Chirac in 2019), he got a picture when he died in 2019. for head-of-state it can boil down to two types of head of state, elected (i.e. president) or hereditary (i.e. King / queen), in that context, mainly the hereditary type of head of state will get pictures, and has equal chance of getting pictures with head of government, but if it's elective it has a lower chance of getting a picture, (some recent examples of monarchs getting a death picture are Sultan of Oman Qaboos bin Said and Emir of Kuwait Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah in 2020, and the UK's Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh in 2021), all three got a picture in the death section on their year of death. for local politicians it's not easy, depending on the politician in question it will either be and no or yes for inclusion, for governor-general's they usually are included, however they usually don't get pictures. for vice president that is still iffy ground for inclusion, a couple countries have a vice president including the U.S., for US vice presidents it depends on the person. so for example, Walter Mondale would be included due to his candidacy in the 1984 United States presidential election however he lost the election and he died in 2021, there was a dispute to include him. however majority said that he can be included, so he ended up being included. for other local politicians, like members of higher or lower legislators. the inclusion is depending on the person in question, so if they were very very important to their Nation, then yes they would be included. so for example John Lewis was included in the death section for the 2020 page because he was a civil rights icon for his country. for extremely local politicians (i.e. Mayors, members of city councils, members of state / Province legislators, and US governors), they're inclusions on main year articles are zero to none.
- Sport
- currently there's no profound consensus on what sports figures get to be included, however there are a consensus to include gold Olympic medalist, and there's also a consensus to include World Cup champions, however other sports people ain't so lucky and there's no consensus on them as of yet.
- Film and Television
- these are grouped together because they're one and the same. there has been a long consensus to include Academy award-winning actors, this year in particular has seen a couple like Sidney Poitier, and William Hurt, last year also had a lot of award-winning actors died like Olympia Dukakis, and Betty White. for all four of those actors there has been a high consensus to include them, though not all actors are included, not every actor has won an Academy Award. two examples include, Bob Saget, and Gilbert godfried. as for Saget there has already been a consensus on this very talk page to not include him in the death section of this years article, however talks are still going on for godfried on whether or not to include him and there hasn't been a deciding factor to include him or not, as of right now he's not included in the death section, though it may or may not change in the future. let's see.
- Music
- for music most artists would be included unless they're very very small artist. like for example, if they reached number one on Billboard and/or got at least one Grammy then they would be possibly be included in the death section, one example would be Ronnie Spector. though that criteria are only for makers of modern music, for makers of classical music, they would need to get a big recognition by some country (i.e. Knighthood or recognition metal), that's because the Grammys don't really qualify classical music that much. there are numerous classical musicians that died each year in even a couple of them get pictures. however for a classical musician to get a picture it varies and I don't know the criteria to get one.
- gaming
- as of right now the gaming industry is only been around for about 50 years so not much famous people have died. the only scenario I can think of is back in 2015 with Satoru Iwata, who is a CEO of Nintendo from 2002 to his death. he got a picture when he died in 2015
- Literature
- as for literature basically almost everyone from the literature field is included, so there's nothing to say here.
- everything else
- for activism depending on the importance of said person they would either be included or Not Included, note: there's always no talk about their inclusion so there's nothing real to state on them
- for philanthropy and science, they would be included depending if they got the Nobel Peace Prize or not, and even a lot of them get pictures, the people who got the pictures from that field this year are Richard Leakey, Luc Montagnier, and Eugene Parker.
- discussion
- I love to hear your opinion about this. 4me689 (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just on the point r.e. Mondale, he wasn’t included on those grounds - indeed, the entire debate regarding Mondale around a year ago was the basis for why we have become much stricter in who we include here. His inclusion was always a borderline, controversial one, but he wasn’t included because any majority were in favour or (especially) that he was a failed major party Presidential candidate - rather, it was because he had greatly expanded the role of his office so that it had far greater international significance in the duties that it undertakes. Extremely borderline case, and I was personally opposed to his inclusion right to the end, but he was included on those grounds nevertheless. TheScrubby (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Is he internationally notable enough to be included? Jim Michael (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- My understanding of Mike Bossy is that he was the star of the New York Islanders when they won four consecutive championships from 1980 to 1983. He holds the records for most consecutive seasons with 50 or more goals and the highest goals-per-game for players who scored at least 200 goals, and the tied records for most 50 goal seasons and 60 goal seasons. This places him in the highest echelons of NHL players. The Voivodeship King (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Unless there's any arguments against it, I'm going to add Bossy back onto the page. The Voivodeship King (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Mike Bossy has been removed for a second time. Please present some arguments in this section. The Voivodeship King (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Alsoriano, nobody has posted any arguments against the inclusion of Bossy. If nobody posts arguments against, I will assume a general agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Voivodeship King (talk • contribs) 13:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Mike Bossy has been removed for a second time. Please present some arguments in this section. The Voivodeship King (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Unless there's any arguments against it, I'm going to add Bossy back onto the page. The Voivodeship King (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
What makes Gottfried as notable as Sidney Poitier, Olympia Dukakis, or even Betty White?
I don't see how he is notable. I just don't. And this isn't me being hard headed or anything. I just don't see it. User:73.12.209.248 (talk) 01:45, April 2022 (UTC)
- Of those, Poitier is by far the most notable, followed by Dukakis, then White, then Gottfried. Poitier is easily notable enough for main year articles; Dukakis & White are borderline. Gottfried isn't internationally notable enough. Jim Michael (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree Poitier is the most notable, his career spans acting and ambassadorships, he’s followed by Betty White. Tossup between Dukakis and Gottfried but I’ll put Dukakis ahead. Gottfried’s international obituaries are mentioning his contributions in respective countries such as awards. International film festivals are honouring Gottfried. It is true though that out of those options given Gottfried is the least notable. However, he is notable based on his international obituaries. I know Jim Michael will use his go-to “international publications aren’t evidence of notability”. I counter that with 1) they’re expressing his contributions too the specific countries and 2) non-notables don’t get international obituaries not even most American celebrities. Liam Davenport (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Olympia Dukakis being an Oscar recipient easily puts her above Betty White. Gottfried has the least notability of the four by some distance, and as has been said before his inclusion would be an aberration given that we have excluded entertainment figures with comparable levels of notability to him. TheScrubby (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Going off Gottfried's international obituaries they express how he was notable in those specific countries. CountingStars500 (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Considering that the Oscars are determined by a small group of Delegates and box-office successes has no bearing on who wins it cannot make a person internationally notable. Dukakis will get the "Who?" reaction internationally, Gottfried had international contributions and dedications. EmilyPhillipson (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- @EmilyPhillipson Well I don't fully agree, box-office success could factor into the delegates choices. But, overall it's not based on reviews of the general public globally. I agree with TheScrubby partially, but it is a flawed metric to purely go by. CountingStars500 (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- How can he not be notable and have international praise for his work in comedy? Up to the point of a co-dedication with Sidney Poitier of Film Festivals. Now, I'm not saying Gottfried is more notable than Poitier that would be foolish on my part to suggest. But, out of all global celebrities that died within say since December 2021 to the present day they choose Gottfried as being notable enough. These are high ranking Film festivals. So, based on international acclaim in the news and entertainment industry he seemed quite notable. So, I don't see how it would be an aberration? CountingStars500 (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to parse "Up to the point of a co-dedication with Sidney Poitier of Film Festivals" , are you referring to Ebertfest? Which is a US domestic film festival arranged by the local university, which Gottfried only gets a shared 'dedication'? Ebertfest 2022 Announces Complete Lineup, Will Be Dedicated to Sidney Poitier and Gilbert Gottfried | Festivals & Awards | Roger Ebert, it's not evidence of international significance. It was probably dedicated partly to him because he was due to be a special guest at the festival this year. The fact this is the best we can come up with is probably proof that he lacks international significance JeffUK (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Ebertfest is international has it covered movies from Africa (Senegal, South Africa), Russia, United Kingdom, Netherlands, China, South Korea, Spain, Mexico, Canada, and that’s just a few. It’s not domestic. Liam Davenport (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- The following are now US states? France, Sweden, Japan, Russia, Netherlands, Egypt, Greece, United Kingdom, Spain, Mexico, Germany, Iran, India, Canada, Senegal, South Africa, Italy. All those places had directors, and actor/actresses that were won and were honoured at the Ebertfest. But what were you saying about it being domestic? CountingStars500 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- The EbertFest does more than American movies, I don't know where you got that idea that it was domestic movies. It honours movies on every continent (except obviously Antarctica). But, as you pointed out: "It was probably dedicated partly to him because he was due to be a special guest at the festival this year", why would an International film festival dedicate their event to a low-level local standup comedian much less as an honored guest if he didn't die, do they go through random obituaries? He's not low level, as his international obituaries are describing about his contributions. EmilyPhillipson (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- No-one's claiming that GG was low-level or local. However, his international notability isn't high enough for main year articles.
- I questioned White's inclusion soon after her death. I've started a new section on Talk:2021 about Dukakis & Macdonald. Jim Michael (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- International notability is the most arbitrary "standard" there is. I'm not merely talking about deaths but events in general. It can be argued ALL events are domestic, should all events be excluded because there's no truly international event? In regards to deaths on a spectrum from 0 to 10; 0 being purely domestic to 10 being completely international where is the inclusion line? It's like saying "how many pebbles constitutes a pile of pebbles?". Oscars, Emmys, etc are determined by a small group of delegates, a celebrity can win no awards but have a significant impact on multiple countries. It's not black or white international notability has a lot of gradation. Liam Davenport (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- It makes sense that substantial international notability is the inclusion bar for main year articles. The level of international notability required isn't clearly defined, which is why we have disagreements & discussions over some people (especially entertainers & sportspeople) as well as events. Some events are clearly important & international, such as Tropical Storm Ana. Some people clearly have substantial international notability, such as Sidney Poitier. Jim Michael (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- 1.) Tropical Storm Ana only covered 3 countries Madagascar, Malawi and Mozambique it's geographic specific.
- 2.) I never denied that Sidney Poitier wasn't notable, he was and his career spanned acting and ambassadorships.
- But, you passed over my point spectrum from 0 to 10. I put Poitier at a 8.9/10 and Gottfried at a 6/10. Many of the people you accepted and or outwardly advocated are a 3 or 4 out of 10. Liam Davenport (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's a scale of international notability, but I can't think of any entertainers whom I've added or said I'm in favour of including who have less international notability than GG. There's still a lot of disagreement about sportspeople. There's less disagreement about politicians, because heads of state/gov are usually included. About 99% of other politicians are clearly domestic. Jim Michael (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- The claim that Gottfried only did stand-up and movies in the United States is wrong. He had international accolades. Granted Poitier is much more notable as I said 8.9/10 and Gottfried at a 6/10. Explain how stub articles are notable? Liam Davenport (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Some examples from 2021:
- - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathalie_Delon
- - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnel_Lindblom
- - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaphet_Kotto
- I rank the above between 3 and 4.9 maybe 5. Now, I'm not advocating removing them because I don't think they are not notable enough, but Gottfried was an internationally known name with known roles he's a 6/10. Liam Davenport (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Working in more than one country isn't enough to include an entertainer; many thousands do. Stub articles aren't excluded. Delon, Lindblom & Kotto should be excluded. Jim Michael (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Working in other countries was used as a reasoning countless times to include people, and it makes sense. If you take your "someone must be awarded the highest honour in the industry logic" would mean that Stephen Hawking would need to be removed because he never won the Nobel Prize in Science, but removing Hawking is idiotic. Stub articles SHOULD be excluded (unless expanded with relevant info). Liam Davenport (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Receiving major awards in multiple countries is often given as a reason to include. Stubs that are included are usually of heads of state/gov of little-known countries & of Olympic gold medallists. Jim Michael (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- How come you limit "Notableness" to FIFA/Olympians pre-1980s, Classical musicians, actors who were low level,and acting/briefly serving government officials? EmilyPhillipson (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've noticed that too, usually someone who spent a few months in office, and classical musicians. Maybe Jim Michael is a classical music fan?, Nothing wrong with that. Gottfried was one of the top sought out comedians but Jim Michael doesn't consider him notable even though many sources say he is. Liam Davenport (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Classical Musicians ? Are you talking about Harrison Birtwistle ?
- Birtwistle has awards from the US, UK, France, and Germany. That makes him notable.
- Like wise, if Yo Yo Ma were to unforunately pass away now, he would be included because of his awards from many countries. 130.86.97.41 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that Yo Yo Ma will get inclusion, I also agree with the inclusion of Harrison Birtwistle; that's not who I was actually thinking of. I was thinking of past cases in prior years. Liam Davenport (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've noticed that too, usually someone who spent a few months in office, and classical musicians. Maybe Jim Michael is a classical music fan?, Nothing wrong with that. Gottfried was one of the top sought out comedians but Jim Michael doesn't consider him notable even though many sources say he is. Liam Davenport (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Receiving major awards in multiple countries is often given as a reason to include." Interesting, so why do you say Gilbert Gottfried isn't notable? CountingStars500 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that Science awards express notability to scientists such as Sidney Altman or Stephen Hawking. However, Entertainment awards are a little iffy, they're chosen based on how a select number of delegates wants. Box office success could play a role but not necessarily. But, if you consider entertainment awards notable Gilbert Gottfried won ensemble an award (CINEeagle) awards and CableAce and comedy awards/nominations DeadCenter and Daytime Emmy, plus dedication to international film festivals. Liam Davenport (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't spoken in favour of acting leaders; I've said they're borderline. I don't recall any classical musicians whom I've added or been in favour of including. I don't discriminate in regard to sportspeople based on when were active; it's based on achievements. None of GG's individual awards are major. Jim Michael (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- If an acting leader made major policy decision they should be included apart from that no."None of GG's individual awards are major." Why do you assume that? Because they were Canadian? Or, that they weren't decided by out of touch delegates like the Oscars? Nominations themselves are hard to get and he got a Daytime Emmy nomination. Anyways what about those domestic awards of European actors/actress you accept on the main year page upon their deaths? Liam Davenport (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- What European Actors/Actresses has Jim accepted with domestic awards ? 130.86.97.41 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I made a list a few comments above. Liam Davenport (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Those three actors/actresses I don't think Jim has promoted inclusion for so it's disingeous to say that he has accepted them. 130.86.97.41 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- They're still on the page and he never removed or brought them up in the 2021 Talk page. That's promoting. Liam Davenport (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not removing them isn't promoting them. Jim Michael (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- They're still on the page and he never removed or brought them up in the 2021 Talk page. That's promoting. Liam Davenport (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Those three actors/actresses I don't think Jim has promoted inclusion for so it's disingeous to say that he has accepted them. 130.86.97.41 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I made a list a few comments above. Liam Davenport (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- What European Actors/Actresses has Jim accepted with domestic awards ? 130.86.97.41 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- If an acting leader made major policy decision they should be included apart from that no."None of GG's individual awards are major." Why do you assume that? Because they were Canadian? Or, that they weren't decided by out of touch delegates like the Oscars? Nominations themselves are hard to get and he got a Daytime Emmy nomination. Anyways what about those domestic awards of European actors/actress you accept on the main year page upon their deaths? Liam Davenport (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't spoken in favour of acting leaders; I've said they're borderline. I don't recall any classical musicians whom I've added or been in favour of including. I don't discriminate in regard to sportspeople based on when were active; it's based on achievements. None of GG's individual awards are major. Jim Michael (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- How come you limit "Notableness" to FIFA/Olympians pre-1980s, Classical musicians, actors who were low level,and acting/briefly serving government officials? EmilyPhillipson (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Stephen Hawking by the way received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from the US which shows his international notability. 130.86.97.41 (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, Stephen Hawking was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom same day that Sidney Poitier was awarded. I'm not saying Hawking wasn't notable. 100% Notable. What I'm saying is he would be notable with or without the Presidential Medal of Freedom or any awards. The awards in and of themselves doesn't make him or anyone notable. His notableness led him to getting it. Liam Davenport (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a big fan of the work of Stephen Hawking but insisting he's notable because he won an award is BS. He's notable because of his work in physics and cosmology and advancing science. He got an award because he was ALREADY notable. If he didn't get it he would still be notable.
- Awards ≠ Notability
- Notability = Awards CountingStars500 (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Receiving major awards in multiple countries is often given as a reason to include. Stubs that are included are usually of heads of state/gov of little-known countries & of Olympic gold medallists. Jim Michael (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Working in other countries was used as a reasoning countless times to include people, and it makes sense. If you take your "someone must be awarded the highest honour in the industry logic" would mean that Stephen Hawking would need to be removed because he never won the Nobel Prize in Science, but removing Hawking is idiotic. Stub articles SHOULD be excluded (unless expanded with relevant info). Liam Davenport (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Working in more than one country isn't enough to include an entertainer; many thousands do. Stub articles aren't excluded. Delon, Lindblom & Kotto should be excluded. Jim Michael (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- The claim that Gottfried only did stand-up and movies in the United States is wrong. He had international accolades. Granted Poitier is much more notable as I said 8.9/10 and Gottfried at a 6/10. Explain how stub articles are notable? Liam Davenport (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's a scale of international notability, but I can't think of any entertainers whom I've added or said I'm in favour of including who have less international notability than GG. There's still a lot of disagreement about sportspeople. There's less disagreement about politicians, because heads of state/gov are usually included. About 99% of other politicians are clearly domestic. Jim Michael (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- It makes sense that substantial international notability is the inclusion bar for main year articles. The level of international notability required isn't clearly defined, which is why we have disagreements & discussions over some people (especially entertainers & sportspeople) as well as events. Some events are clearly important & international, such as Tropical Storm Ana. Some people clearly have substantial international notability, such as Sidney Poitier. Jim Michael (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- International notability is the most arbitrary "standard" there is. I'm not merely talking about deaths but events in general. It can be argued ALL events are domestic, should all events be excluded because there's no truly international event? In regards to deaths on a spectrum from 0 to 10; 0 being purely domestic to 10 being completely international where is the inclusion line? It's like saying "how many pebbles constitutes a pile of pebbles?". Oscars, Emmys, etc are determined by a small group of delegates, a celebrity can win no awards but have a significant impact on multiple countries. It's not black or white international notability has a lot of gradation. Liam Davenport (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to parse "Up to the point of a co-dedication with Sidney Poitier of Film Festivals" , are you referring to Ebertfest? Which is a US domestic film festival arranged by the local university, which Gottfried only gets a shared 'dedication'? Ebertfest 2022 Announces Complete Lineup, Will Be Dedicated to Sidney Poitier and Gilbert Gottfried | Festivals & Awards | Roger Ebert, it's not evidence of international significance. It was probably dedicated partly to him because he was due to be a special guest at the festival this year. The fact this is the best we can come up with is probably proof that he lacks international significance JeffUK (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, just for the record being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom means nothing outside America; it’s about as Americentric an award as you can get. It’s not, and has never been, a bar for inclusion here - unless we wanted to make equivalent awards for any other country fair game. Hawking was obviously a very internationally notable figure in any case, which we all clearly agree on. TheScrubby (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- @TheScrubby I agree with you. If it was criteria for inclusion Rush Limbaugh would be internationally notable and included. Liam Davenport (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
What the hell. I re-added Gottfried then @CountingStars500 removed him again. I thought you favoured Gottfried's inclusion? What's going on? -Liam Davenport (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I still support Gottfried's inclusion due to his international contributions. However, I removed him again because I want to get to the bottom of why people are confused about his contributions internationally in the comedy sphere. He's notable, but people don't realize. Just want to get to the bottom of the confusion. He can't stay up in the interim. CountingStars500 (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think people are confused. I think they're working backwards from a conclusion. It seems like they don't want comedians included generally. The international media are covering his contributions to their respective countries; international comedians are expressing his trailblazing efforts that led more people into the industry. And his 2 wins and 1 nomination for Cyberchase, a show that is Canadian, an international film festival dedication, and the list goes on. Liam Davenport (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Being in the comedy field doesn't make a person disfavoured here, nor less notable. Some critics view comedy as inherently inferior to drama, but I don't. Jim Michael (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Then why shouldn’t Gottfried be included. He was high up on well-known comedians internationally. He also has the international accolades. Are all the countries and entertainers the confused ones who are honouring Gottfried? He has done more than Iago and he’s standup wasn’t NYC exclusive, that would make him not internationally notable, but he is internationally notable and recognized. Liam Davenport (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- What's the likelihood of Gottfried being included in the "In Memoriam" segment of award shows and festivals? It's close to 100%, already happened at the Ebertfest. Notable names in the comedy world attended his funeral such as Sarah Silverman who look a picture with Lily at the service. Gottfried was in a Canadian TV show (longest role; 2002-2022) and a British Canadian movie. He's a trailblazer in the industry. CountingStars500 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Millions of people have worked in multiple countries, including thousands of entertainers. He didn't win major awards. Who's at a funeral or memorial doesn't denote high international notability.
- Why are you both intensely focused on GG, to the exclusion of everything else? Single-purpose accounts are discouraged. Jim Michael (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why do you assume I'm exclusively focused on GG? I'm very diverse in what I do on Wikipedia. Many times it's politics related. However, I do want to clear the record on erroneous assumptions you made in regards to GG. He did win major awards and the international media is covering his international contributions. Regardless, awards don't make someone notable, they are delegate selected, not based on box office success. CountingStars500 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's not an assumption; all your last 50 edits are about GG.
- Awards are given a lot of weight, especially if they're major awards from multiple countries. Jim Michael (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I simply want to clear the record on GG. He DID win a Canadian award for Cyberchase with American, British, and Canadian Awards. According to you someone could find a cure for cancer, but not win any awards and they won't be notable. See how silly that sounds? CountingStars500 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not to mention that it DOES say it on his Wiki-bio. Click on 6.2 and scroll down to Cyberchase, the last row with the notes. CountingStars500 (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I checked and it does say it:
- Daytime Emmy [Nominee]
- Outstanding New Approaches - Daytime Children's
- Daytime Emmy Awards 2007 EmilyPhillipson (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- The awards he won weren't major. Jim Michael (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- He won major international awards. You can diminish his career all you like, but you're still incorrect. CountingStars500 (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why do they include him here if he's not notable? https://www.emmys.com/in-memoriam Liam Davenport (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- That means nothing though. The overwhelming majority of the figures included in that link would in no way meet the bar for inclusion here, and the Emmy Awards are far more Americentric than say, the Oscars. TheScrubby (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Oscars are quite Americentric also. But, if you want an internationally based award Life, Animated was honoured at the BAFTAs. Liam Davenport (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also, if you think I'm being Americentric I'm not. When O Yeong-su dies I will fight for his inclusion. He's not American, but he's quite notable. Liam Davenport (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well he did win a Golden Globe which shows notability outside of Korea. 73.12.209.248 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- That means nothing though. The overwhelming majority of the figures included in that link would in no way meet the bar for inclusion here, and the Emmy Awards are far more Americentric than say, the Oscars. TheScrubby (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- The awards he won weren't major. Jim Michael (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why do you assume I'm exclusively focused on GG? I'm very diverse in what I do on Wikipedia. Many times it's politics related. However, I do want to clear the record on erroneous assumptions you made in regards to GG. He did win major awards and the international media is covering his international contributions. Regardless, awards don't make someone notable, they are delegate selected, not based on box office success. CountingStars500 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Being in the comedy field doesn't make a person disfavoured here, nor less notable. Some critics view comedy as inherently inferior to drama, but I don't. Jim Michael (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think people are confused. I think they're working backwards from a conclusion. It seems like they don't want comedians included generally. The international media are covering his contributions to their respective countries; international comedians are expressing his trailblazing efforts that led more people into the industry. And his 2 wins and 1 nomination for Cyberchase, a show that is Canadian, an international film festival dedication, and the list goes on. Liam Davenport (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- GG seems not to have done much outside the US. It's clear from some of the Wikipedias where he has stub articles that someone (the anon who began the one in Cymraeg is blocked) has been promoting him, in the widest sense, for the last ten years, and I would like to understand who and why. Editors sometimes do this to make their favourite celebrity appear internationally known when they are not, and it's not to be encouraged. Deb (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- He did do quite a bit outside the US; his longest role (2002-2022) was not American. He was also honoured at international film festivals. CountingStars500 (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
He was prolific, but what international notability does he have? Jim Michael (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Eagle Has Landed (novel) and film! Maria Gemmi (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also (from the article) "His 85 novels in total have sold more than 250 million copies and have been translated into 55 languages." Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed per Black Kite. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also (from the article) "His 85 novels in total have sold more than 250 million copies and have been translated into 55 languages." Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Is he internationally notable enough? Jim Michael (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ehh, i would say so. He won two acting awards in Italy, through the Venice Film Festival which shows notability outside his home country. 130.86.97.41 (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, international award wins show some international nobility. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- International awards don't necessarily show notability. It really comes down to the process of how the awards are determined. Liam Davenport (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, international award wins show some international nobility. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Is Robert Morse notable enough for inclusion?
In my opinion yes, he has won a lot of awards. he had won 2 Tonys, a Primetime Emmy, a Screen Actors Guild Award, and a Drama Desk Award. that's more Awards than both Bob Saget, Gilbert Gottfried, and even Michel Bouquet, the ladder is included on this year's page. I can understand why Sagat and godfried didn't get included in this year's page, Saget didn't get any awards, and godfried only got a Emmy. however Bouquet got two European Awards and still ended up being included. 4me689 (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm neutral on Morse. But, I lean inclusion.
- In regards to Gottfried his only American award was an Emmy. But he also has two Canadian Awards, plus an International Film Festival (EbertFest) dedication. There seems to be confusion on that here. EmilyPhillipson (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Gottfried also has a awarded documentary. CountingStars500 (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have strong reservations about Morse’s inclusion, and a lot of his awards are very much Americentric. I feel that we have excluded more notable actors than Morse - there should definitely be more of a discussion though, in large part because I don’t feel I’m knowledgable/familiar enough on him to comment. Would be keen to hear what @Jim Michael: and @Black Kite: has to say. One last thing I’ll add though, in relation to the comments immediately above me: this section is about Morse, not Gottfried, of whom there has already been an excessive discussion on in multiple different sections. TheScrubby (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude Morse due to a lack of international notability; all his awards are American. Jim Michael (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Opening this section to discuss Lafleur's inclusion. I am supporting inclusion for several reasons - he won five Stanley Cups, three Art Ross Trophies (top points scorer), two Hart Memorial Trophies (MVPs), three Lester B. Pearson Awards (player's player) and one Conn Smythe Trophy (Playoff MVP). He is also the all-time top scorer for the Montreal Canadiens, the oldest NHL franchise and was ranked 11th in The Hockey News 100 Greatest Players in 1998. We included Ted Lindsay in 2019 who both has less awards and is ranked lower on the All-Time list. I cannot think of any arguments against his inclusion. Sincerely, The Voivodeship King (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Including: That being said those awards aren't international therefore I don't know if Jim Micheal, TheScrubby, or Black Kite would support. Their criteria is very lopsided and inconsistent. But, for me Yes, I'll include. CountingStars500 (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- My criteria are completely consistent, but thanks for the aspersion. In this case my knowledge of ice hockey isn't enough for me to give a definitive opinion - I know about the Stanley Cup but am unfamiliar with the other awards. Black Kite (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Whether or not you’re consistent is one thing but you do only look at partial aspects of someone’s career instead of the full contributions. Liam Davenport (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- My criteria are completely consistent, but thanks for the aspersion. In this case my knowledge of ice hockey isn't enough for me to give a definitive opinion - I know about the Stanley Cup but am unfamiliar with the other awards. Black Kite (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Was he internationally recognised, and competed in major international competitions within his field of sports? I’m undecided at this point, though it’s true that hockey is more of a regional sport rather than global like soccer, cricket, tennis, etc. TheScrubby (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- He was on the Canadian National team. Liam Davenport (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- In regards to leagues, the National Hockey League is the highest quality league in the world and attracts players from other nations as such. Leagues like the Kontinental Hockey League are still present, but only attract lower-quality or ageing nhl players at best. It would be similar to discarding a Spanish footballer because he only played in La Liga. We did include cricketers Shane Warne and Rod Marsh. Lafleur is similarly recognised to Marsh and ice hockey is played in a similar number of countries at a high level (Canada, U.S.A., Finland, Russia, Sweden, Germany, Czechia, Slovakia, etc.)The Voivodeship King (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- He was on the Canadian National team. Liam Davenport (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Full context
Shouldn't editors know the full context of those who dies career? Because this is clearly not being done on this page. The totality of people's careers are being ignored thereby calling them "not notable". This should change, people should look into outside sources instead of jump reactions. CountingStars500 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've noticed that too. It is important to know the background of someone in their entirely before deeming someone notable or not notable. Suggestions on how this could be done? Liam Davenport (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with your statement, we need to fix this problem. this problem is caused by people just relying on the Wikipedia pages and not going and investigating other Pages like IMDb or other wikis. 4me689 (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's not reasonable to expect the regulars to research each person on many sites before deciding whether or not they're internationally notable enough to be included in the Births & Deaths sections of main year articles. Their articles should clearly state their notability, including positions held, awards won, international participation etc. - backed by RS. The fans who want to include them could do more to improve those articles. Main year articles need more editors who are here regularly & frequently; most editors of them are only here to add one particular person or event. Jim Michael (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's been quite a few times when you (and others) deemed someone "not notable" and when I look the person up on Google a plethora of international contributions come up. Not only that, many times it's already stated on their Wiki-bios (which you didn't catch?). Regardless, it's lazy thinking to rely purely on Wiki-bios to determine notability. Full context is important. CountingStars500 (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't said they're not notable; I said they're not (sufficiently) internationally notable. The onus is on those who want to include various people. Portraying minor awards as major, nominations as awards etc. isn't going to work. Jim Michael (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Gottfried was honoured at the BAFTA (Life, Animated) and he won major awards in Canada. Now international awards that are major are minor because they're not American? Kind of Americentric. CountingStars500 (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean by honoured by BAFTA? He didn't win any BAFTAs. If you mean someone mentioned him there, that means nothing. Jim Michael (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- There was a BAFTA viewing and Q&A for Life, Animated. CountingStars500 (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- First on the list: https://www.bafta.org/search/bafta/Gilbert%2520Gottfried CountingStars500 (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's nothing like winning a BAFTA. Jim Michael (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I never said he won a BAFTA, I said he was honoured at the BAFTAs, you insisted he was never at. He won a CINEeagle in Canada. He is also an acclaimed podcaster interviewing celebrities in the acting world. CountingStars500 (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't say he was never at the BAFTAs; I said he didn't win any. Jim Michael (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- You insisted he was never internationally recognized. Now you're backtracking. CountingStars500 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, I said he has insufficient international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, he was notable enough to attend BAFTA, he was invited. However, he was one of the highest ranking comedians globally. CountingStars500 (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, I said he has insufficient international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- You insisted he was never internationally recognized. Now you're backtracking. CountingStars500 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't say he was never at the BAFTAs; I said he didn't win any. Jim Michael (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I never said he won a BAFTA, I said he was honoured at the BAFTAs, you insisted he was never at. He won a CINEeagle in Canada. He is also an acclaimed podcaster interviewing celebrities in the acting world. CountingStars500 (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's nothing like winning a BAFTA. Jim Michael (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean by honoured by BAFTA? He didn't win any BAFTAs. If you mean someone mentioned him there, that means nothing. Jim Michael (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- In regards to Gottfried he has won major international awards and honours. Besides, why are awards given so much weight anyways since they're chosen by a small group? You need to factor in all international contributions. Liam Davenport (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- He didn't win major awards. Jim Michael (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- He did. Anyways, why are you skipping this: "Besides, why are awards given so much weight anyways since they're chosen by a small group?" You have no rebuttal, because awards does not mean notability. They mean that a few people who runs the awards personally like them. Liam Davenport (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- But awards SHOW notability. Or else, you would open up a can of worms. Regarding the Baftas, almost everyone who worked in the British film industry was honored, doesn't mean they are notable. 73.12.209.248 (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- He did. Anyways, why are you skipping this: "Besides, why are awards given so much weight anyways since they're chosen by a small group?" You have no rebuttal, because awards does not mean notability. They mean that a few people who runs the awards personally like them. Liam Davenport (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- He didn't win major awards. Jim Michael (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Stub pages aren't notable; by definition they can't be. Not enough information to present about their contributions.EmilyPhillipson (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not true - they could include individual Olympic golds or a term as head of state/gov. Jim Michael (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Gold Medal olympians should have their pages expanded, and then should be included. Heads of state and/or government should be included but not acting ones (unless clear policy events occurred during their time in office). EmilyPhillipson (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- We don't exclude people whose articles are stubs. Jim Michael (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Gold Medal olympians should have their pages expanded, and then should be included. Heads of state and/or government should be included but not acting ones (unless clear policy events occurred during their time in office). EmilyPhillipson (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not true - they could include individual Olympic golds or a term as head of state/gov. Jim Michael (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Gottfried was honoured at the BAFTA (Life, Animated) and he won major awards in Canada. Now international awards that are major are minor because they're not American? Kind of Americentric. CountingStars500 (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't said they're not notable; I said they're not (sufficiently) internationally notable. The onus is on those who want to include various people. Portraying minor awards as major, nominations as awards etc. isn't going to work. Jim Michael (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's been quite a few times when you (and others) deemed someone "not notable" and when I look the person up on Google a plethora of international contributions come up. Not only that, many times it's already stated on their Wiki-bios (which you didn't catch?). Regardless, it's lazy thinking to rely purely on Wiki-bios to determine notability. Full context is important. CountingStars500 (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's not reasonable to expect the regulars to research each person on many sites before deciding whether or not they're internationally notable enough to be included in the Births & Deaths sections of main year articles. Their articles should clearly state their notability, including positions held, awards won, international participation etc. - backed by RS. The fans who want to include them could do more to improve those articles. Main year articles need more editors who are here regularly & frequently; most editors of them are only here to add one particular person or event. Jim Michael (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is not the place for arguing about the conduct of other editors; suggest you review WP:DR if you have specific issues with the content you think would merit wider discussion JeffUK (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Dispute resolutions have been tried countless times; it doesn't help when people are set in their ways. CountingStars500 (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- People being set in their ways isn't the issue. Fans coming here to add one person or event is. Jim Michael (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- People advocating for Gottfried's inclusions aren't necessarily fans; they simply see the evidence of his international notability. He opened the floodgates leading to the careers of countless comedians globally. Are all these comedians tributing Gottfried just a bunch of confused people? Whose going to say any minute now "Wait?, whose this Gottfried guy? was I drunk?" CountingStars500 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's clear this is a 3rd section that's actually arguing for the inclusion of Gottfried; in what way has dispute resolution been tried on this specific issue? Did I miss it? JeffUK (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I made this a a general discussion to discuss peoples' full context in general. Jim Michael brought up the situation involving Gottfried. CountingStars500 (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- It also wasn't me who initially brought up the first two Gottfried threads. CountingStars500 (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't the first to mention GG in any thread. Jim Michael (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I want to clarify; I'm aware you didn't initially bring Gottfried up in the initial two threads about him. What I meant is that your initial comment on this thread seemed like you were insinuating Gottfried:
- "It's not reasonable to expect the regulars to research each person on many sites before deciding whether or not they're internationally notable enough to be included in the Births & Deaths sections of main year articles. Their articles should clearly state their notability, including positions held, awards won, international participation etc. - backed by RS. The fans who want to include them could do more to improve those articles. Main year articles need more editors who are here regularly & frequently; most editors of them are only here to add one particular person or event."
- But, you very well could have been neutral by that statement, I might have read too much into it. I want to apologize to you for that Jim Michael. CountingStars500 (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the many cases of fans adding people - mostly entertainers & sportspeople - who have little or no international notability, to main year articles. This year, the 3 longest discussions on this talk page have been about Bob Saget, Scott Hall & GG. Jim Michael (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- They're not necessarily fans though. Maybe, they know something about those individuals international notability. You could be humble admit that people research these things and just say you didn't know. CountingStars500 (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Personally, I've never of Scott Hall until he died. I decided to look into him, he does have international notability as it turns out. In regards to Bob Saget I agree with you Jim Michael it's not up to standard, but he's very close. However, Gottfried does have international acclaim, and is well known globally through standup, documentaries, and celebrity podcasting. You can't just isolate his career to NYC standup and Iago then ignore the rest his career; then claim "no international notability". I completely agree with avoiding the lists being Americentric, but now it seems that you don't want Americans period. GG's influence impacted the comedy world who knows where some modern-day comedians globally would be today without GG. Liam Davenport (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- The non-regulars who persist in adding the same people are fans. I've been in favour of including & excluding people of various nationalities. Jim Michael (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, they're not necessarily fans, some may be. Many though do a deep-dive research of the person's whole career rather than diminishing it (like you have). GG did more that just Iago and NYC exclusive standup. He was internationally acclaimed in the comedy world, he was honoured at the BAFTA (per the BAFTA link). Liam Davenport (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fans are the only people who'd do deep-dive research. Honouring isn't an award. Jim Michael (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- You refuse to do any research (a self admission). Being honoured while not an award in and of itself shows that he was acknowledged by BAFTA (something you denied he ever was, making your some argument crumble). Deep dive research shows whether someone is notable or not, you admitted to lazy thinking.
- Aside: This is neither here nor there but I read your comments in the voice of HAL-9000. You sound robotic. Liam Davenport (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I said he didn't win awards; being honoured is trivial; it carries no weight. None of the regulars are going to do deep-dive research at the request of persistent fans who have an inflated view of the people whom they're fans of. Jim Michael (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- He has won Canadian awards and comedy awards. Regardless, it been continuously pointed out the questionable process that determines awards. You never gave a response. Care to? Liam Davenport (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- So, you don’t care if sources contradict Wikipedia? You do realize that that’s a criticism of Wikipedia? It’s baffling that you don’t want to improve Wikipedia. Liam Davenport (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- His awards aren't important enough. We often exclude people if their awards aren't important or are only from one country. If fans have relevant RS that improve WP articles, they're welcome to add them. Jim Michael (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- You’re still refusing to answer the fact that the awards are determined by a select group. Why? I’m giving you every opportunity I rebut, but you don’t. You want to? Liam Davenport (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have - we require people on main year articles to have won awards from different orgs. Jim Michael (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- That doesn’t answer the question: All awards are determined by a small group, not based on box office success. GG was in the comedy world, one of the highest rated global comedians. It seems more and more like you don’t like comedians. Gottfried is an awardEd comedian. All comedians should be deleted based on the standard you set. Again, people who determine notable and not should be aware of the career FULLY not partially like you. Isolating his career to local NYC and then arguing based on that will obviously limit his global significance. But, I’m not going to do that. Liam Davenport (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Robin Williams would have stayed under Jim's standards. 73.12.209.248 (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Robin Williams while he was a comedian his career took on a predominate role in acting. I'm talking about exclusive comedians as a category of its own. Liam Davenport (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Williams was also called a " Comedian's Comedian", and is cited as one of the greatest comedians ever.
- So his career didn't predominate in film and acting. He did both. 73.12.209.248 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, Williams was also a Comedian's Comedian. But, my point is his career also included non-comedy Good Will Hunting for example was not a comedy. And guess what Williams and Gottfried collaborated together (not just in Aladdin). Both were ingrained in the entertainment industry and worked together. Liam Davenport (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Robin Williams while he was a comedian his career took on a predominate role in acting. I'm talking about exclusive comedians as a category of its own. Liam Davenport (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Robin Williams would have stayed under Jim's standards. 73.12.209.248 (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- That doesn’t answer the question: All awards are determined by a small group, not based on box office success. GG was in the comedy world, one of the highest rated global comedians. It seems more and more like you don’t like comedians. Gottfried is an awardEd comedian. All comedians should be deleted based on the standard you set. Again, people who determine notable and not should be aware of the career FULLY not partially like you. Isolating his career to local NYC and then arguing based on that will obviously limit his global significance. But, I’m not going to do that. Liam Davenport (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have - we require people on main year articles to have won awards from different orgs. Jim Michael (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- You’re still refusing to answer the fact that the awards are determined by a select group. Why? I’m giving you every opportunity I rebut, but you don’t. You want to? Liam Davenport (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- His awards aren't important enough. We often exclude people if their awards aren't important or are only from one country. If fans have relevant RS that improve WP articles, they're welcome to add them. Jim Michael (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I said he didn't win awards; being honoured is trivial; it carries no weight. None of the regulars are going to do deep-dive research at the request of persistent fans who have an inflated view of the people whom they're fans of. Jim Michael (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fans are the only people who'd do deep-dive research. Honouring isn't an award. Jim Michael (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, they're not necessarily fans, some may be. Many though do a deep-dive research of the person's whole career rather than diminishing it (like you have). GG did more that just Iago and NYC exclusive standup. He was internationally acclaimed in the comedy world, he was honoured at the BAFTA (per the BAFTA link). Liam Davenport (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- The non-regulars who persist in adding the same people are fans. I've been in favour of including & excluding people of various nationalities. Jim Michael (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the many cases of fans adding people - mostly entertainers & sportspeople - who have little or no international notability, to main year articles. This year, the 3 longest discussions on this talk page have been about Bob Saget, Scott Hall & GG. Jim Michael (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't the first to mention GG in any thread. Jim Michael (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's clear this is a 3rd section that's actually arguing for the inclusion of Gottfried; in what way has dispute resolution been tried on this specific issue? Did I miss it? JeffUK (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- People advocating for Gottfried's inclusions aren't necessarily fans; they simply see the evidence of his international notability. He opened the floodgates leading to the careers of countless comedians globally. Are all these comedians tributing Gottfried just a bunch of confused people? Whose going to say any minute now "Wait?, whose this Gottfried guy? was I drunk?" CountingStars500 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- People being set in their ways isn't the issue. Fans coming here to add one person or event is. Jim Michael (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Dispute resolutions have been tried countless times; it doesn't help when people are set in their ways. CountingStars500 (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Figured this merits a discussion, given the recent edit conflicts regarding her. Personally while I would be opposed to the inclusion of most supercentenarians, I wouldn't entirely be opposed to Kane Tanaka's inclusion - given that she had not only been the world's oldest living person for several years, but was also the second-oldest person who had ever lived and one of only three people officially verified to have lived to 119 or over (and naturally any consensus r.e. Tanaka would also bring to question Jeanne Calment). Would be happy to go with whatever consensus is reached for cases like this, but I figured I'd get the ball rolling at least. TheScrubby (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well Jim Michael is saying in their edit summaries that there's a previous consensus regarding supercentenarians, which would be very useful, but I can't find one in the archives. Jim? Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Several years ago, it was agreed that we don't include people for being the youngest, oldest, only/last/longest survivor etc. I can't remember where/when this was discussed. Consensus was reached after some were adding people such as last survivors of disasters such as the sinking of the Titanic as well as oldest people. With the possible exception of Calment, they aren't particularly notable. Also, it's a slippery slope to oldest/youngest people in hundreds of different fields/circumstances. Likewise, richest. Jim Michael (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, count me as firmly being opposed to including people purely on the basis of being a "last survivor" of a historical event - I'm talking people along the lines of Millvina Dean and Werner Doehner. The most exceptional supercentenarians (Calment, Jiroemon Kimura and possibly Tanaka and Sarah Knauss) are borderline, but I would agree against any of those mentioned in said "slippery slope". TheScrubby (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I actually agree with Jim Michael on this one. Worldwide life expectancy is going up and being a supercentenarian will become less and less notable. I'm not going to outright say no inclusion, but is their anything in Kane Tanaka's life that she contributed? CountingStars500 (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Several years ago, it was agreed that we don't include people for being the youngest, oldest, only/last/longest survivor etc. I can't remember where/when this was discussed. Consensus was reached after some were adding people such as last survivors of disasters such as the sinking of the Titanic as well as oldest people. With the possible exception of Calment, they aren't particularly notable. Also, it's a slippery slope to oldest/youngest people in hundreds of different fields/circumstances. Likewise, richest. Jim Michael (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think she should be included as the death of the oldest person in the world who is also the second oldest person ever, this is plenty significant. If we end up getting dozens of people under this category we can always review. JeffUK (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- for last survivors, I think we should exclude them. you being the last survivor doesn't make you notable in anyway, and the only thing that makes you remotely notable is that you are the last survivor or the last person to die who were related to said event.
- however, I'm neutral about supercentenarians, but barely lean for inclusion.
- on one hand, being one of the oldest people is a rare feet. and like what TDKR Chicago 101 said, that the last time this happened was back in 1999, also if the life expectancy goes up, then, the longest age record will go up as well.
- on the other hand these people didn't do much more than to live very very long lives. 4me689 (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and it should be pointed out that as of now, there have only ever been four officially verified people who have reached the age of 118 and over, of whom two of them lived until the 1990s (Calment and Knauss), and one (Randon) is still alive (the second oldest, after Randon, is at least two years younger and it would be a surprise if she reached a similar age). That, if I may say so, is exceptionally rare, and alongside Jiroemon Kimura (the oldest man who ever lived) I think we can afford to make exceptions for these particular supercentenarians (albeit as borderline cases), and nobody else. So I would lean towards including just the supercentenarians who have reached 118 and over, plus Kimura. TheScrubby (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Tanaka was the second oldest living person verified ever, that was a feat last accomplished by Sarah Knauss in 1999 (over two decades ago). This is pretty significant and should merit inclusion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude - I can't see much of an argument for it. I removed her from her year of birth because, since her notability consisted entirely in her being alive. Now she's no longer living, that's no longer the case. If we include her, then what happens if Lucile Randon lives longer? Do we then keep Tanaka in for being the third longest-lived person ever? How long would this continue? Deb (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah, this is the problem. I would be tempted to include someone who broke Calment's record, because they will always hold that record for that period of time even if someone else later breaks it, but I am unconvinced that second-longest is massively notable (though there's a large amount of international coverage, so ...). Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I can't believe that it's the leading story in any country other than Japan. Even if it were, we don't use that as a measure of importance. If we did, we'd have to say that the Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident & the allegation against Angela Rayner are among the most important things that happened in the world this year. If we're including second-oldest, that opens the floodgates wide for various second-oldest x people: by ethnicity, occupation, circumstance etc. She had an ordinary life - it was merely longer than usual. Jim Michael (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I really think it's because this really goes way beyond nationality - out of billions of people on the planet who have lived over the last century or so, only about 1,000-1,500 end up living to 110 and over at any one time. And of that miniscule number, just four have been officially verified to have reached the age of 118 and over - Tanaka herself was the first of just two people to reach that milestone this century alone. Their longevity may be their only point of notability, but it doesn't make it any less significant, especially when we're talking about their significance in the field of gerontology (it's said on Tanaka's Wiki page as well that she "has contributed to the debate that the maximum lifespan for humans could be 115–125 years"). Just including any supercentenarian or current "world's oldest person" title is not what I'm advocating, but the ones who made it over 118 I think should be an exception. Having said that, I would oppose the inclusion of "last survivor" supercentenarians such as Emma Morano (last person born in the 1800s), Violet Brown (last subject of Queen Victoria), Nabi Tajima (last person born in the 19th Century), and other such figures, for none of them reached the 118 milestone. TheScrubby (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Being rare doesn't make them important. Jim Michael (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- They absolutely are, if we’re talking on a biological scale and the field of gerontology. And I don’t think the inclusion of the four 118+ year olds (plus the oldest ever man, Kimura) would be too much of an issue, particularly given that only one has died at such an age in the last 22 years, and there are only two prior to that. So long as we strictly limit ourselves to them so far as supercentenarians are concerned. TheScrubby (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Being rare doesn't make them important. Jim Michael (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I do think there are cases to be made for e.g. 'last surviving veteran of World War 1' and 'last surviving veteran of World War 2' and 'last survivor of Nazi concentration camps' for instance. Where their death does mark the passing of an era of living witnesses to some exceptionally significant international period; only if their death is reported widely in that context. JeffUK (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- At the very least it does help that the oldest man who ever lived, Jiroemon Kimura, also happened to be the last surviving WWI veteran - albeit one who only briefly served in 1918 and did not see combat. But besides that, I’m extremely reticent about including last survivors just for the sake of it - unless they were notable for reasons beyond longevity and their “last survivor” status. TheScrubby (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Last survivors aren't important. Including them opens the door to many such people, including people held hostage for the longest, along with only survivors of disasters, people married for the longest, oldest twins etc. That's a slippery slope we should avoid altogether. Avoiding/delaying death doesn't make a person important. Jim Michael (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Last survivors of World Wars do tend to make international headlines, though. The problem with those however can be seen with WW1 - you have Kimura d.2013 (was in armed forces during the war, but not in a combat unit and didn't see action at all), Florence Green d.2012 (was in a combat unit, but not in the theatre of battle), and Claude Choules d.2011, actually saw combat. So it isn't even easy with those. Black Kite (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Last/only survivors of various things gain a lot of media coverage; it doesn't make them important. Jim Michael (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sustained and in-depth international coverage == international notability. That's the definition, really. But it has to be properly in-depth and sustained - a slew of copy/pasted Reuters/AP death notices from random international news websites aren't going to cut it. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- A sole survivor of a plane crash could receive that sort of media attention. Jim Michael (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- They receive a lot of attention, but it would be more related to their part in a major news story than it would be to their longevity. I think this would be rare, though, and the only example I can think of is Vesna Vulović, who had enough coverage both of the incident, her life afterwards, and her death, to easily pass the bar. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- She also didn't do anything notable. She was merely lucky to survive. It's the sort of thing the media love, so they publicised it. Likewise, people who've survived being held by criminals for an unusually long time, such as Jaycee Dugard. Jim Michael (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- They receive a lot of attention, but it would be more related to their part in a major news story than it would be to their longevity. I think this would be rare, though, and the only example I can think of is Vesna Vulović, who had enough coverage both of the incident, her life afterwards, and her death, to easily pass the bar. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- A sole survivor of a plane crash could receive that sort of media attention. Jim Michael (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sustained and in-depth international coverage == international notability. That's the definition, really. But it has to be properly in-depth and sustained - a slew of copy/pasted Reuters/AP death notices from random international news websites aren't going to cut it. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Last/only survivors of various things gain a lot of media coverage; it doesn't make them important. Jim Michael (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Last survivors of World Wars do tend to make international headlines, though. The problem with those however can be seen with WW1 - you have Kimura d.2013 (was in armed forces during the war, but not in a combat unit and didn't see action at all), Florence Green d.2012 (was in a combat unit, but not in the theatre of battle), and Claude Choules d.2011, actually saw combat. So it isn't even easy with those. Black Kite (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Last survivors aren't important. Including them opens the door to many such people, including people held hostage for the longest, along with only survivors of disasters, people married for the longest, oldest twins etc. That's a slippery slope we should avoid altogether. Avoiding/delaying death doesn't make a person important. Jim Michael (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- At the very least it does help that the oldest man who ever lived, Jiroemon Kimura, also happened to be the last surviving WWI veteran - albeit one who only briefly served in 1918 and did not see combat. But besides that, I’m extremely reticent about including last survivors just for the sake of it - unless they were notable for reasons beyond longevity and their “last survivor” status. TheScrubby (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I really think it's because this really goes way beyond nationality - out of billions of people on the planet who have lived over the last century or so, only about 1,000-1,500 end up living to 110 and over at any one time. And of that miniscule number, just four have been officially verified to have reached the age of 118 and over - Tanaka herself was the first of just two people to reach that milestone this century alone. Their longevity may be their only point of notability, but it doesn't make it any less significant, especially when we're talking about their significance in the field of gerontology (it's said on Tanaka's Wiki page as well that she "has contributed to the debate that the maximum lifespan for humans could be 115–125 years"). Just including any supercentenarian or current "world's oldest person" title is not what I'm advocating, but the ones who made it over 118 I think should be an exception. Having said that, I would oppose the inclusion of "last survivor" supercentenarians such as Emma Morano (last person born in the 1800s), Violet Brown (last subject of Queen Victoria), Nabi Tajima (last person born in the 19th Century), and other such figures, for none of them reached the 118 milestone. TheScrubby (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I can't believe that it's the leading story in any country other than Japan. Even if it were, we don't use that as a measure of importance. If we did, we'd have to say that the Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident & the allegation against Angela Rayner are among the most important things that happened in the world this year. If we're including second-oldest, that opens the floodgates wide for various second-oldest x people: by ethnicity, occupation, circumstance etc. She had an ordinary life - it was merely longer than usual. Jim Michael (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah, this is the problem. I would be tempted to include someone who broke Calment's record, because they will always hold that record for that period of time even if someone else later breaks it, but I am unconvinced that second-longest is massively notable (though there's a large amount of international coverage, so ...). Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
What should be the standard for entertainers?
Here is my view :
1. A Points System regarding awards. Yes, a points system. Why points ? Well some awards do carry heavier weight than others, if they have international notability in of itself. Cannes, Oscar, Cesar, Bafta, Golden Globes,
International awards should have 5 points each. So for example if American Actor Bob Smith had an Oscar, Golden Globe, and a Bafta for his singular performance in a movie, he would get 15 points.
Of if a French Actor won a European Film award, and then a Cesar, he or she would get 10 points.
The Canadian film awards would also be given 5 points each.
Emmys and the Tonys also count as international if and only if actors/actresses/comedians outside of the US win them, for example Angela Lansbury winning 5 tonys. Or if a US Actor wins a olivier award.
It also depends however, for example, Jessica Chastain winning only a oscar and a golden globe then how doo we know that she is notable ? We have to look at smaller awards.
Smaller awards such as the Dublim Film critic festival, or San Sebastian Film Festival count for 2.5 points each, so Jessica Chastain would count. But Not Robert Morse.
It has to be a combonation of big and small awards, and/or if you get nominations from foreign awards as well. Robin Williams an example.
Group awards do not neccarily count as a sign of notability. Are we going to include every producer ? Being nominated for one also doesn't count. However once again, it depends, The oscar best picture award due to it's high singular profile, can be 2.5 points.
2. Consistent international news coverage that that details what impact the dead person has in that country. Now we have to be careful, especially regarding people like Gilbert Gottfried.
Many international news outlets just repost the associated press report with no additional information that says how he or she impacted that country. For example, Gilbert Gottfried in Austrlia, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-13/gilbert-gottfried-dies/100987006, if you go to the bottom, it says AP. There's nothing extra about how he impacted australian culture.
3. So... What doesn't count ? Being on another show produced in another country. Many US Actors for example appeared or star in international TV shows, but they don't win individiual awards in the country that the show/movie is made in. It's going to open up a can of worms if we do allow the restriction to be relaxed.
Being honored at a film Festival doesn't count either. The Eberfest is just one film festival in the US, it doesn't mean anything. Gottfried was famous in the US for his comedic career. By the standard, we would have to exclude William Hurt because he wasn't honored at a festival.
Being the subject of a international awarded documentary also doesn't count. Why ? It's not the subject that gained notability ! It's the film. Especially in Gilbert Gottfried's case, the award went to the documentary itself, not him. It would be weird if we applied this standard to say Louie Anderson, or Robert Morse. If there was an awarded documentary about Louie Anderson, we would still exlclude him.
Being one of many dead people at the Emmys honored, also doesn't count, are we include all the in memorioum people ?
No of course not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.209.248 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Gottfried was being honoured in Canada and the United Kingdom, and was well known in Japan. His longest role was Canadian.
- Now in regards to the people listed on the Emmy's in memoriam. Their inclusion on main year pages should come down to the extent of their career. For, example: Kathy Lamkin while honoured on the Emmy page had a limited career therefore shouldn't be included on the 2022 main page. However, Gottfried was ingrained in the comedy, documentary, acting, activism, and podcasting communities. Liam Davenport (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I too think it should come down to how ingrained they were in their particular field(s). How well known they were, and if they were honoured internationally in that particular field(s). Yes, there are hundred's of people included on the Emmy's in memorial section, but how impactful was their contributions to the field. Some people listed don't even have Wikipedia bios, they're automatically excluded, others are very ingrained in the entertainment field and should be included. CountingStars500 (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- The documentary doesn't make him notable, that's not the point. The documentary explains why he was already notable. Just like an award doesn't make someone notable, they were already notable and got an award. The insinuation that Gottfried didn't have international fame (ie Notability) is asinine. EmilyPhillipson (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also, keep in mind that Gottfried is ranked high among lists of the most recognizable comedians internationally. CountingStars500 (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's only his distinctive, unusual voice that's widely-recognised. Jim Michael (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually yes, lists of the top comedians internationally includes Gilbert Gottfried near the top. CountingStars500 (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Lists do put him high on international stand-up comedians. You may not have liked dirty jokes, but it is true that he was one of the highest sought out comedians. Many lists puts him above Stephen Colbert and Sarah Silverman but below Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock. Liam Davenport (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Jim Michael Wait, you really never knew that Gilbert Gottfried was on the lists of top comedians internationally? Everything makes sense now. EmilyPhillipson (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please link to lists that put GG in the top 10 in the world. Jim Michael (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not to mention one of the most notable celebrity podcasters with guests like Dick Van Dyke. CountingStars500 (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- that comes to the question, when Dick Van Dyke dies will he be notable enough for inclusion. 4me689 (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say Dick Van Dyke is 100% notable, when that day comes. CountingStars500 (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Van Dyke's been brought up before, and I think there's an understanding that he'll be included in the event of his death. TheScrubby (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say Dick Van Dyke is 100% notable, when that day comes. CountingStars500 (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- that comes to the question, when Dick Van Dyke dies will he be notable enough for inclusion. 4me689 (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's only his distinctive, unusual voice that's widely-recognised. Jim Michael (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Ice hockey players - Bossy and Lafleur
We've had short discussions on Mike Bossy and Guy Lafleur, former ice hockey players who dies this April. Both are some of the best known and most successful NHL players in history. We ended up with no arguments against Bossy, but when I attempted to add him, he was removed. A short discussion ensued on Lafleur's notability, but came to an abrupt end. Can we continue this discussion? The Voivodeship King (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Include both. CountingStars500 (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sports really is not my main area of familiarity, but I think what's clear is that the question of whether or not the most significant players of regional sports (such as hockey, baseball, rugby, any "football" that is not soccer, etc.) ought to be included needs to be resolved - and that is something we have consistently struggled to resolve over the last year. That, I would say, is the more pressing matter to resolve, after which cases like Bossy and Lafleur will become much more straightforward to decide. TheScrubby (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have my doubts that they have to be included. Neither are they the most important in that sport, nor is the sport particularly popular outside that region. Comparing it to the Spanish soccer league is very foolhardy, as many players in European national leagues have more international popularity than any Canadian (or non-Canadian) ice hockey players. Obviously. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I know very little about ice hockey & hadn't heard of either player until I saw on WP that they'd died. If I weren't on WP, I'd still not have heard of either of them. Their articles show that they each played for Canadian & American teams as well as their national team & that they have important achievements/awards at the bottom of their articles. How important are their teams, performances & what they won? How international are they? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Montreal Canadiens (Lafleur)are the oldest team in the league, one of the oldest American sports teams in any code and a greatly respected entity in general. The Islanders (Bossy) have been around for half a century. Lafleur won five Stanley Cups, three Art Ross Trophies (top points scorer), two Hart Memorial Trophies (MVPs), three Lester B. Pearson Awards (player's player) and one Conn Smythe Trophy (Playoff MVP). These are the most prestigious awards given each year by the NHL. Bossy won four Stanley Cups, one Conn Smythe, one Calder Memorial Trophy (Rookie of the Year) and three Lady Byng Memorial Trophy (Best and Fairest). Whilst Canadian players make up a fair portion of the sport's players, other nations have produced very fine players. In the last thirty years, the NHL's MVP has gone to four different Russians, two different Swedes, two Czechs, a German and an American. The NHL is also widely considered the strongest hockey league - European players like Ovechkin, Draisaitl, Victor Hedman and Patrik Laine all played in their nation's leagues before immediately switching to the NHL clubs (or their minor teams) who drafted them. The Voivodeship King (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I know very little about ice hockey & hadn't heard of either player until I saw on WP that they'd died. If I weren't on WP, I'd still not have heard of either of them. Their articles show that they each played for Canadian & American teams as well as their national team & that they have important achievements/awards at the bottom of their articles. How important are their teams, performances & what they won? How international are they? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have my doubts that they have to be included. Neither are they the most important in that sport, nor is the sport particularly popular outside that region. Comparing it to the Spanish soccer league is very foolhardy, as many players in European national leagues have more international popularity than any Canadian (or non-Canadian) ice hockey players. Obviously. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Is Neal Adams internationally notable enough for inclusion?
what I can find, he created a lot of DC characters, like Ra's al Ghul, Man-Bat, and John Stewart, he help Superman get popular again, and got recognition from Superman's creators, and got a lot of recognition. like getting inducted into Will Eisner Comic Book Hall of Fame in 1998, getting inducted to Jack Kirby Hall of Fame in 1999, and getting inducted to Inkwell Awards Joe Sinnott Hall of Fame in 2019.
I don't know what to say about inclusion, I'm just going to leave it up to the talk page. any thoughts? 4me689 (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say it comes down to how significant those comics were globally.
- I knew him more for the "Expanding Earth" hypothesis as an alternative to plate tectonics. CountingStars500 (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- He won awards for his illustrations. My main concern is how were the awards determined. Saw his drawings and he was talented. His expanding earth ideas were idiotic. Liam Davenport (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- All of his awards are American. He has no international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- You can’t solely rely on awards. What about people who died and their fame isn’t tied to a field with awards? Awards International or Domestic don’t determine notableness. Also, I never said he was notable or not notable. His comic drawings have gone global. And he’s been trending globally years before his death. You are the King of omitting chunks of peoples careers then slapping the “not notable” sticker on them. Again, not a fan of Adams his whole pseudoscientific belief of the expanding earth is baloney. Liam Davenport (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Jim Michael. So far as comic book figures go, it would take Stan Lee levels of notability to be included, and I don’t think Adams had that. TheScrubby (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- in my opinion, you would need to make a big superhero character to even get the chance to get included. Adams didn't create a big superhero character, all he created was side characters.
- so yes, in my opinion, Exclude Adams, as all his Awards are American like Jim Michael said. 4me689 (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- True, Adams was no Stan Lee. How common was non-Americans receiving the awards that Adams received? I say that until that is known it's good too Exclude Neal Adams at least for the time being. CountingStars500 (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed - he was a domestic figure whose notability was nowhere near that of Stan Lee. Jim Michael (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- All of his awards are American. He has no international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I don't find him notable enough. That being said this list is already filled with non-notables. While at the same time excluding people as not notable based on omitting chunks of peoples' careers. While I agree that Adams shouldn't be included this is a problem that needs to be solved. EmilyPhillipson (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- People & events of insufficient notability are frequently added to main year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't see how ANY event is internationally notable. All events should be deleted apart from World War I and II, and the War on Terror. CountingStars500 (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Some other events clearly have substantial international notability, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine & the Olympics. Jim Michael (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I can agree with your examples; but, it still stands that most of the events are purely domestic. Also, I've reviewed the history of past years in which you deleted an event for lacking international notability. But the country doesn't have a year page (red linked), thereby deleting the entirety of the event. CountingStars500 (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Domestic events are frequently added to & removed from main year articles. In many cases, they should be on year by country &/or topic articles (if the relevant article exists). They shouldn't be on main year articles even if the relevant sub-articles don't (yet) exist. Some things wrongly added to main year articles are local &/or trivial events that aren't even important enough for the sub-articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've read the events on many year's main pages and they all seem domestic to me. What's your line? National elections are by definition domestic. CountingStars500 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- National elections are routinely included because national governments affect international relations. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've read the events on many year's main pages and they all seem domestic to me. What's your line? National elections are by definition domestic. CountingStars500 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Domestic events are frequently added to & removed from main year articles. In many cases, they should be on year by country &/or topic articles (if the relevant article exists). They shouldn't be on main year articles even if the relevant sub-articles don't (yet) exist. Some things wrongly added to main year articles are local &/or trivial events that aren't even important enough for the sub-articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I can agree with your examples; but, it still stands that most of the events are purely domestic. Also, I've reviewed the history of past years in which you deleted an event for lacking international notability. But the country doesn't have a year page (red linked), thereby deleting the entirety of the event. CountingStars500 (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Some other events clearly have substantial international notability, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine & the Olympics. Jim Michael (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't see how ANY event is internationally notable. All events should be deleted apart from World War I and II, and the War on Terror. CountingStars500 (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- People & events of insufficient notability are frequently added to main year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
What individual international notability does he have? Jim Michael (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to retain Schulze, given his significance (individually, not so much with other groups) as a pioneer of electronic music - his work in the development of said genre being central to his international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
does Naomi Judd have enough notability to be included. I don't know what to say about her inclusion, just please, before you make the decision, please look at what she accomplished. 4me689 (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude due to a lack of international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this verdict, she is not notable. 4me689 (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude Country music is by its nature parochial and very few artists in that genre achieve international notability (and even some of those do so for other reasons, i.e. acting). Black Kite (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, and Judd wasn't exactly Hank Williams/Johnny Cash/Dolly Parton levels of notable. Even the duo with whom she rose to fame with have very limited notability outside their home country. TheScrubby (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Russia announces departure from ISS
Is the event for May 2 – "Russia announces it may be pulling out of the International Space Station as soon as two years from now, because of the sanctions imposed on the nation after its invasion of Ukraine" notable enough to be included under events? I believe this is noteworthy news, especially because no other major members from the ISS have ever left before, and the fact that Russia confirmed that they they will be pulling out before their commitment to the station is up. Lastly, because this event directly relates to the war in Ukraine, I feel the event should be added. Thanks! --Johnson524 (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- in my opinion, it should be added cuz no member of the ISS (aside from China) has pulled out of it. and the International Space Station is a big thing. 4me689 (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Include Per 4me689 because pulling from the ISS is a big deal especially as a response to sanctions. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I removed it on the basis they have been threatening this for months; this announcement is no more substantial than the other threats, ‘Russia *may* pull out of the ISS’ is too weasly to merit inclusion as an event in its own right. they were only ever committed to the ISS until 2024 anyway so even if it does come to pass, this isn’t even news let alone an important international event. JeffUK (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
There are articles supporting the view this may be a case of rumour or threats that aren't likely to be substantiated. "That's not an announcement of a departure from the program — just an acknowledgement that Roscosmos will give the other partners a heads-up if such a decision is made." https://www.space.com/russia-leave-space-station-rogozin-threats. I really think such threats don't constitute an international event, and this article supports that. Very close to WP:Crystal as I don't think Roscosmos is a reliable source. JeffUK (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
4me689 apparently disagrees that a Russian official's announcement of pulling out of the ISS program at some undetermined point in the future doesn't merit mention on its own. What do you think? — Yerpo Eh? 12:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- That is false, I agree with the inclusion of the event 4me689 (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's what Yerpo is saying. Why do you claim that an announcement that something may happen is important? If it happens, we'll include it then. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Jim Michael 2: thanks for merging, I didn't see the existing topic. As for the topic itself, it's like you pointed out - the event of Russia pulling out will certainly be important if/when it happens, but this is not what we're talking about. We're talking about one official's (unsubstantiated) claim that the decision about this was made - even the cited source says that the same official has been saying different things days earlier. So can we please stop muddling the issue? Those supporting inclusion, you need to demonstrate why this claim is important on its own. — Yerpo Eh? 12:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and even if the withdrawal happens, it won't be this year. It therefore makes no sense to include it in this article. As it's not certain to happen, it's not even important enough for 2022 in Russia. We shouldn't include any vague statements. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Jim Michael 2: thanks for merging, I didn't see the existing topic. As for the topic itself, it's like you pointed out - the event of Russia pulling out will certainly be important if/when it happens, but this is not what we're talking about. We're talking about one official's (unsubstantiated) claim that the decision about this was made - even the cited source says that the same official has been saying different things days earlier. So can we please stop muddling the issue? Those supporting inclusion, you need to demonstrate why this claim is important on its own. — Yerpo Eh? 12:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's what Yerpo is saying. Why do you claim that an announcement that something may happen is important? If it happens, we'll include it then. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
It's very common for businesspeople to buy & sell companies. We rarely include them on main year articles. Twitter is a social networking service. It's not powerful, important or particularly influential. Most of its content is pop culture, celebrities, sports coverage, trivia, gossip, propaganda, self-promotion, conspiracy theories, trolling, opinions & people posting photos of their food, their pets etc. Using Twitter coverage as a measure of importance, the minor attacks on Chris Rock & Dave Chappelle are among the most important world events of 2022 and are many times more important than the 2022 Peshawar mosque attack. It has news coverage, but so do many other sites & it's not widely considered to be an important, reliable news outlet. Claims, speculation etc. about how Elon Musk may change it are akin to looking into a crystal ball. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, if you don't think Twitter is "powerful, important or particularly influential", you are clearly not familiar with it. Yes, it covers pop culture, but of course it does, because so does every type of media. The fact that Twitter is used by megacorps and politicians alike to release news, announce policy and discuss the issues of the day should tell you how seriously it is taken. Politicos - up to and including heads of countries - don't phone up the NYT or Reuters to give their opinions - they simply post them on Twitter instead. There was a survey recently - which of course I now can't find - that showed that something like 70% of adult Americans used Facebook and/or Twitter as the main method of acquiring their news. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am familiar with it. The amount of genuine, useful, reliable news on it is greatly outweighed by various junk of the types I list above. Compare how long the Will Smith-Chris Rock slap trended on there to how long the Peshawar mosque attack did. The former gained so much more coverage that you couldn't compare them on the same scale. No-one could genuinely say that an actor slapping another actor is worse or more important than an Islamic State suicide attacker killing over 60 people as part of an arrogant attempt to form a caliphate. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- And tabloid newspapers regularly sell more than heavyweight ones, and EastEnders has higher viewership ratings than Panorama, but we don't exclude The Times or BBC TV as some of our most reliable sources. I'm not sure of your point here, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Times is heavyweight, content-wise. It didn't go downmarket when it reduced its size. We don't use lowbrow sources such as The Sun & the Daily Mirror. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Er, yes, that's exactly my point. We don't define British newspapers by the fact that the Daily Mail is the best-selling one, we don't define the BBC by its most watched programme, and similarly we don't define Twitter as trivial because a lot of people post cat memes on it. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Times is heavyweight, content-wise. It didn't go downmarket when it reduced its size. We don't use lowbrow sources such as The Sun & the Daily Mirror. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- And tabloid newspapers regularly sell more than heavyweight ones, and EastEnders has higher viewership ratings than Panorama, but we don't exclude The Times or BBC TV as some of our most reliable sources. I'm not sure of your point here, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am familiar with it. The amount of genuine, useful, reliable news on it is greatly outweighed by various junk of the types I list above. Compare how long the Will Smith-Chris Rock slap trended on there to how long the Peshawar mosque attack did. The former gained so much more coverage that you couldn't compare them on the same scale. No-one could genuinely say that an actor slapping another actor is worse or more important than an Islamic State suicide attacker killing over 60 people as part of an arrogant attempt to form a caliphate. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- "It's not powerful, important or particularly influential." -- Genuinely, one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on a Talk Page. And I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- In Twitter's defence it should be pointed out that 329 million people still use the site as of April 2022. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- No-one's disputing that Twitter is popular, but even if it were one of the most important things in the world - rather than merely one of the most important & popular social media sites - that wouldn't mean that a change of ownership is an important event. Businesses, websites etc. undergoing changes of ownership aren't inherently important events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Come on jim Michael, it just seems that everyone disagrees with you at this point, Twitter is one of the biggest social media platforms out there, Elon Musk buying up Twitter could be a new era for social media, and for the online space as a Hole. So you should include it, cuz, it could end up being one of the biggest Story of the Year. 4me689 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- You are absolutely correct that changes of ownership are not necessarily important. However, since the new owner has promised to significantly change how the platform operates, that is what has driven the huge amount of coverage worldwide of his takeover - and that coverage is what makes the event notable. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly. I mean we're talking about a platform that literally influences global discourse, free speech and even democracy itself. It now has the richest person in history at its helm, who looks set to fundamentally alter its course. This isn't like the buying of Spotify or some dating app like Tinder. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Changes of ownership are common & we don't usually include them. There are many social networking sites which have a higher number of users. Musk being the world's richest person doesn't make his purchase inherently important. It's received a lot of international media coverage because he's a high-profile, fairly controversial person who seeks it. Him saying he's going to make major changes to Twitter doesn't necessarily mean that he will. We don't include things based on promises/claims/speculation. We also don't include things because they receive a lot of media coverage. If we did, we'd include the minor attacks on Chris Rock & Dave Chappelle, as well as many reactions to those overpublicised events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- You keep saying this ("We also don't include things because they receive a lot of media coverage.") and it's simply not true - if there is sustained international in-depth coverage that's exactly the metric we use to include things. And this story has that coverage (it's still going a week later), unlike your other examples. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Chris Rock-Will Smith slap received weeks of continuous, frequent media (including social media) coverage, including reactions from a ridiculous number of organisations & celebrities giving their opinions on the 'momentous' event. Some social media channels made & released their own series of videos during late March as well as April about it. Of all the events that have happened in the world this year, only the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine & the COVID-19 pandemic have received more media coverage. Using media coverage as a measure of importance, that slap was the third most important thing that happened in the world in 2022. However, no-one could genuinely say it was among the hundred most important events. We don't include the slap, nor should we. If Musk didn't have a high profile, there wouldn't be as much media coverage, nor support to include it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- You're continuing to conflate celebrity gossip and lightweight media (the Rock story was pretty much gone from heavyweight media in 48 hours) with heavy and sustained coverage in actual news sources (Musk's takeover was a week ago and there are new stories today in the Guardian, Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Independent, Al Jazeera, Fortune, CNN, CNBC and that's just the English language sources on the first two pages of the news results. Just to re-iterate; that's a week-old story still getting new coverage in the highest quality of sources. Black Kite (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Come on, guys. Jim Michael is the only one arguing against inclusion. me, Wjfox2005, and Black Kite want inclusion, because Twitter can influence World politics, and it's one of the biggest social media platforms. This section should have a consensus already, and the consensus is 3 - 1 for inclusion. This section is about the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, not jim Michael versus black kite, the acquisition of Twitter is different than the slapping of Chris Rock, the latter happens every few award shows, and doesn't influence politics what so ever, the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk will influence politics a lot in the future, TDKR Chicago 101, and TheScrubby have not responded yet, but I would really love to see their opinion on this. 4me689 (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Saying that Musk buying Twitter will influence politics a lot in the future is mere speculation. We don't know how he'll change it; saying he'll make major changes is mere assumption. Many businesspeople, politicians, writers, sportspeople, entertainers etc. say they're going to do things but don't. This story is merely rich businessman buys big company, which happens frequently. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- If the story was simply "rich businessesman buys big company" it would have died a death in the media by now. As I pointed out above, it hasn't (indeed the amount of coverage in serious heavyweight media has actually increased). This is obviously notable, regardless of what Musk does with the company. Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Saying that Musk buying Twitter will influence politics a lot in the future is mere speculation. We don't know how he'll change it; saying he'll make major changes is mere assumption. Many businesspeople, politicians, writers, sportspeople, entertainers etc. say they're going to do things but don't. This story is merely rich businessman buys big company, which happens frequently. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Chris Rock-Will Smith slap received weeks of continuous, frequent media (including social media) coverage, including reactions from a ridiculous number of organisations & celebrities giving their opinions on the 'momentous' event. Some social media channels made & released their own series of videos during late March as well as April about it. Of all the events that have happened in the world this year, only the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine & the COVID-19 pandemic have received more media coverage. Using media coverage as a measure of importance, that slap was the third most important thing that happened in the world in 2022. However, no-one could genuinely say it was among the hundred most important events. We don't include the slap, nor should we. If Musk didn't have a high profile, there wouldn't be as much media coverage, nor support to include it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- You keep saying this ("We also don't include things because they receive a lot of media coverage.") and it's simply not true - if there is sustained international in-depth coverage that's exactly the metric we use to include things. And this story has that coverage (it's still going a week later), unlike your other examples. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Changes of ownership are common & we don't usually include them. There are many social networking sites which have a higher number of users. Musk being the world's richest person doesn't make his purchase inherently important. It's received a lot of international media coverage because he's a high-profile, fairly controversial person who seeks it. Him saying he's going to make major changes to Twitter doesn't necessarily mean that he will. We don't include things based on promises/claims/speculation. We also don't include things because they receive a lot of media coverage. If we did, we'd include the minor attacks on Chris Rock & Dave Chappelle, as well as many reactions to those overpublicised events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly. I mean we're talking about a platform that literally influences global discourse, free speech and even democracy itself. It now has the richest person in history at its helm, who looks set to fundamentally alter its course. This isn't like the buying of Spotify or some dating app like Tinder. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- No-one's disputing that Twitter is popular, but even if it were one of the most important things in the world - rather than merely one of the most important & popular social media sites - that wouldn't mean that a change of ownership is an important event. Businesses, websites etc. undergoing changes of ownership aren't inherently important events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Jim Michael is correct though when he invokes WP:CRYSTAL - and on that basis I think it would be wise to hold off on including the event until in due time the takeover has proven to lead to changes of significant consequence. At the same time, it is also absolutely correct that Twitter in this day and age is a platform of great consequence and influence as argued by Black Kite, among others. Overall though, in light of both of these factors, count me as Neutral. TheScrubby (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- This seems reasonable. I'm happy to wait until "significant consequence" is proven. If leaning, it would be for inclusion. The Voivodeship King (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that waiting is wise. We should revisit in six months. agtx 21:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Do you mean include or exclude it for the next 6 months? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ironically, what happens in six months is actually irrelevant here, as the intense media coverage that makes this notable enough to post is happening now. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- If media coverage is the measure of notability, Depp v. Heard is one of the most important events in the world this year, and this decade. It's receiving intense, sustained, international media coverage - in quality as well as low-brow media outlets. However, no-one would seriously claim it's any more than a domestic event which is receiving disproportionately high media coverage because of the 2 main participants' fame. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- unlike the acquisition of Twitter, Depp v. Heard is a local event that has absolutely has no effect on world politics and belongs in 2022 in the United States. I said it earlier, the acquisition of Twitter will influence World politics in a big way in the future, as now these days Twitter has very big power in world politics. 4me689 (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Only if Musk makes major changes to it. You're assuming he will, as though if he says he'll do something, he certainly will. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Correct. Depp v Heard has no effect on anything except Depp and Heard, and the coverage is merely "this is what happened in court today", as opposed to the seriously in-depth analysis in heavywieght press of the Twitter story. Black Kite (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- unlike the acquisition of Twitter, Depp v. Heard is a local event that has absolutely has no effect on world politics and belongs in 2022 in the United States. I said it earlier, the acquisition of Twitter will influence World politics in a big way in the future, as now these days Twitter has very big power in world politics. 4me689 (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- If media coverage is the measure of notability, Depp v. Heard is one of the most important events in the world this year, and this decade. It's receiving intense, sustained, international media coverage - in quality as well as low-brow media outlets. However, no-one would seriously claim it's any more than a domestic event which is receiving disproportionately high media coverage because of the 2 main participants' fame. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that waiting is wise. We should revisit in six months. agtx 21:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- This seems reasonable. I'm happy to wait until "significant consequence" is proven. If leaning, it would be for inclusion. The Voivodeship King (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I’m in favor of keeping the Twitter acquisition here. Twitter isn’t some little know startup company, it’s extremely influential in our respective societies and Musk (being one of, if not the richest man in the world) purchased this influential company that made headlines globally I think is worth a mention. I think it’s kind of weird to compare the acquisition to “the slap” because sure it was more talked about in social life than the acquisition but it won’t really have much on an impact later on. I think the twitter acquisition is worth mentioning here (as I already believe we’re getting a little too picky about what’s warranted for inclusion in this article). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Would we be considering including this if the buyer were a billionaire who isn't controversial & doesn't have such a high profile, such as Bernard Arnault, Warren Buffett or Larry Page? Anything involving Musk - whether it be his business deals, his personal life or even what he says - is given a great deal of media attention. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
both of these world leaders have been put up as pictures at one point and keep getting switched over and over again, which one should get the picture. 4me689 (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Obviously the Banda photo is better quality while unfortunately the only available photo of Mutallibov leaves much to be desired. But nevertheless, the latter figure is of greater historical significance, so I would prioritise his image over Banda's. TheScrubby (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Mutallibov pic is of such poor quality that it's almost useless, so it shouldn't be used. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- The main image on Mutallibov‘s article is much better, we should use that JeffUK (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, use that one instead. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, we can't use the main image on Mutallibov‘s article, because it's a "fair use" image that can only be used on his article. TheScrubby (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- In that case, we should use the Banda pic. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, we can't use the main image on Mutallibov‘s article, because it's a "fair use" image that can only be used on his article. TheScrubby (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, use that one instead. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- The main image on Mutallibov‘s article is much better, we should use that JeffUK (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Mutallibov pic is of such poor quality that it's almost useless, so it shouldn't be used. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
The accidental explosion at the Hotel Saratoga in Havana is a domestic event & hence shouldn't be on this article. International media coverage doesn't make the explosion international. If it did, we'd include many domestic mass-casualty incidents in each year article. We'd also include domestic crimes such as the disappearance and killing of Gabby Petito, which received undue media coverage primarily because of the victim's looks, age & gender. We'd also include overblown domestic trivia such as the Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident & Depp v. Heard. 2022 in Cuba having not (yet) been created isn't a reason to put the explosion on here. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- how many times we have to say this, it's different for each case. the murder of Gabby betito, the slapping a Chris Rock, and Depp v. Heard, are all domestic things that belong to 2022 in the United States, because all three are a footnote in history barely anybody will look back upon. the Hotel Saratoga was built back in the 1880s, and it's one of the last few things that is a Revenant of pre-1959 Cuba, and because of that, it's one of Cuba's most historic buildings. the hotel Saratoga had a lot of celebrities that stayed there (ie Madonna and Beyonce). the blowing of the hotel Saratoga means that Cuba lost one of it's pre-communism symbols, and when it gets rebuilt, it will probably look nothing like it did before. look at other communist regimes, Mao Zedong destroyed or nearly destroyed a lot of ancient Chinese Shrines, just because he thought he can rewrite Chinese history in his name, that's called the Cultural Revolution. furthermore other governments like Afghanistan's Taliban destroyed a lot of old statues, like the Bamiyan Buddhas, one of the world's oldest statues before it got destroyed by the Taliban in 2001. the Taliban also destroyed a lot of other old stuff just because they wanted to. the thing is, unless it's apparent that it's super not notable, it's good to go to talk first before removing it. now, I wonder what Black Kite has to say about this. 4me689 (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree with Jim Michael on many edits, but on this particular one he is correct. It's a domestic event and shouldn't be on 2022. Wjfox2005 (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Domestic events are routinely removed from main year articles. The Smith-Rock slap & Depp-Heard case will be talked about for years. They're among the most publicised events of their lives & careers. What you're saying about the hotel is important to Cuba, but not relevant to the rest of the world. What the hotel will look like when repaired/rebuilt is speculation & domestic. Those celebs weren't staying there on the day of the explosion, so they're not relevant. The comparisons you make to former structures in Asia isn't reasonable, because they were deliberately destroyed. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Neither the Smith nor Depp cases are in the article (correctly so in my opinion.) I don't understand why this is being brought up in relation to a hotel in Cuba. The explosion is not a significant enough event to warrant inclusion. Sounds like an industrial accident in a building site, these happen all the time. If it was an international terror attack, in a state building, or if the hotel had been full of international guests it may be different. JeffUK (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I mentioned the slap & court case in response to the claim that international media coverage warrants the inclusion in main year articles of domestic events. Like the vast majority of fatal accidents in buildings, this is a domestic event. I agree that if, for example, the explosion had been caused by an Islamic State bomb, it'd have been important enough to include. If the victims included people from various countries, it may have been important enough to include; that's what led to the Surfside condominium collapse becoming internationally notable. However, no RS is saying either of those things were true in regard to the Havana explosion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Neither the Smith nor Depp cases are in the article (correctly so in my opinion.) I don't understand why this is being brought up in relation to a hotel in Cuba. The explosion is not a significant enough event to warrant inclusion. Sounds like an industrial accident in a building site, these happen all the time. If it was an international terror attack, in a state building, or if the hotel had been full of international guests it may be different. JeffUK (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the topic is very internationally important, while the death toll is very high I don't see very much coverage from the media. When it comes to 2022 building disasters, the Changsha building collapse received far more coverage than the Hotel Saratoga disaster and had a far higher death toll but didn't manage to make it to this page. But I guess we can't all be Rana Plazas. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi everybody, excuse me if I'm starting this discussion but I think that a basketball player who was inducted in the NBA Hall of Fame should be listed here; moreover the statement "he lacked international notability" is quite questionable... Lanier's death was reported all over the world (see: CNN, Sky Sport, Marca, L'Équipe). He played in the NBA only, that's right, but if we use this criteria we should remove almost 90% of the greatest basketball players of all time. If you don't know who he was, no problems, but I sincerly don't know what "international notability" means if he did not have it. By the way, I'm not American and I wasn't a fan of Lanier, I wasn't even born when he was in the NBA, so I humbly think I'm not biased but I'm just unsure about the criteria used here. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- exclude Lanier, International coverage does not equal inclusion. The MBA is a local League, that's only really a thing in North America. I'm American, so don't tell me I'm foreign and know nothing about American Sports, some basketball players get included mainly cuz they have higher honors (ie Olympic gold medals), the NBA Hall of Fame is not a higher honor, dus having said person inducted into the NBA Hall of Fame does not Merit inclusion on this article. Lanier belongs to 2022 in the United States. 4me689 (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ok but in the European leagues, players usually play both in national leagues and European cups, so they authomatically have "international notability". For an American player who plays in one of the North American sport leagues this will never happen. He was one of the greatest players of his generation, he never won a title, but he was an hall of famer. We've sources from all over the world reporting his death, but ok... -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude because he has no international notability. He should be on 2022 deaths in the United States, but not here. Being in halls of fame - even international ones - doesn't grant inclusion. Most players who've competed internationally aren't important enough for main year articles; they need to have major international achievements. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ok but in the European leagues, players usually play both in national leagues and European cups, so they authomatically have "international notability". For an American player who plays in one of the North American sport leagues this will never happen. He was one of the greatest players of his generation, he never won a title, but he was an hall of famer. We've sources from all over the world reporting his death, but ok... -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Vinnytsia International Airport
Is the airstrike on the Vinnytsia International Airport really relevant? Ten people died, which is unfortunately a common death count for attacks during the war. I don't see a reason why it needs inclusion. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely Include, it seems to be a Russian attack, and there's a lot of events in the Russian invasion of Ukraine that is as notable as this. 4me689 (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly- there's quite a lot of events in the war, including Russian attacks, and the vast majority are not notable for a main year article. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think there are too many Russia-Ukraine events in this article, but what should the inclusion criteria be for them? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly- there's quite a lot of events in the war, including Russian attacks, and the vast majority are not notable for a main year article. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Too many entries for Russia-Ukraine war?
I think there are, We have Timeline_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine for a detailed blow-by-blow account, I think events in this article should be significant events in the war itself (large numbers killed or injured in a single event) or high-level international reaction (not threats or announcements.) I propose removal of some that were more 'breaking news' than 'events', and some are not, on balance, important enough events in the war for the year article, this is just a start there may be others that could be taken out:
- February 28 - 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Football governing bodies FIFA and UEFA suspend Russian clubs and national teams from all competitions.
- UEFA is international but relatively minor. No real lasting impact.
- March 2 - 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: The United Nations reports that over a million refugees have now fled from Ukraine to other countries.
- Running totals hitting arbitrary numbers aren't 'events' the lead could contain the latest figure of refugees.
- March 6 – 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Vinnytsia International Airport is destroyed by Russian missiles, as President Zelenskyy calls for a no-fly zone to prevent further attacks in Ukraine.[77][
- Relatively inconsequential attack.
- March 8 - 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Major global brands including McDonald's, Coca-Cola and Starbucks halt sales in Russia, in response to its attacks on Ukraine.
- Much less significant than the international sanctions.
- March 25 – 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Russia's defence ministry announces that the first phase of its military operation is "generally" complete, saying the country will focus on the "liberation" of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.
- Russian Propaganda, announcements are not events.
- March 29 – 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Russia's deputy defense minister says that Moscow has decided to "fundamentally cut back military activity in the direction of Kyiv and Chernihiv" in order to "increase mutual trust for future negotiations to agree and sign a peace deal with Ukraine".
- Russian Propaganda, announcements are not events.
- April 19 - 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announces that Russia's military operation has entered a new phase, focused on the entire front line of Eastern Ukraine. The city of Kreminna is reportedly the first to be captured.
- Russian Propaganda, announcements are not events.
- April 20 - 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Russian and Belarusian players are banned from the Wimbledon tennis championship.
- relatively little significance
- May 2 – Russia announces it may be pulling out of the International Space Station as soon as two years from now, because of the sanctions imposed on the nation after its invasion of Ukraine.
- As per section on the talk page, it's an announcement not an event.
JeffUK (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Michael 2 (talk • contribs)
- None of the entries you've mentioned will be deleted. Can you and Jim Michael stop trying to ruin this page by insisting that literally every f***ing thing must be deleted. I don't think you've any idea how infuriating it is – for me to spend large chunks of my time carefully researching and adding entries (all of which are relevant and notable), filling in the references, etc. – and then coming on here and seeing some random little editor bleating and whining that eVeRyThIng mUsT nOw bE dEleTed. It's getting to the point where I'm going to stop contributing here, because it seems like a waste of time and effort. Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)