This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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 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)
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)
- Thank you for the replies, I trust your judgement! Johnson524 (talk) 17:33, 16 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)
- All of the discussion here assumes that it's a done deal, but it's in increasing doubt, and we don't include possible events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:27, 31 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)
- Hey everyone, extremely new to this page and Wikipedia as a whole. Just learned about the Talk function. As I'm sure you all have figured out I strongly disagree on the explosion not being included on this page. It received a lot of media coverage in the US and Latin America. In addition, a Spanish tourist did die in the explosion, expanding its impact. The building was also very historic and internationally known. A comparison to the Changsa Building collapse is not fair as this occurred in a well-known building in the center of Cuba's capital (And just a few hundred steps from the center of government). There was also no coverage of the Changsa collapse in most western media as far as I'm aware. Also, there being no 2022 in Cuba page in English is a good reason to add it. Events shouldn't not be included because they occur in smaller, non-English speaking nations. On a different note, the month of May is nearly halfway over and there are five events currently documented there. (For comparison, April has 13 events listed by the 12th and March has 23). Hope you all are open to changing your minds. Joshuaalee59 (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the Joshuaalee59 statement
- the fact that one tourist dead made me support inclusion even more, Jim Michael, Wjfox2005, JeffUK, and Dunutubble. what's your status on inclusion.
- also Black Kite, TheScrubby, and TDKR Chicago 101, have not responded yet, but I would really love to see their opinion on this. 4me689 (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with where Jim Michael, Wjfox2005 and JeffUK stand on this, for the record. TheScrubby (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- The death toll is rather high so it might be available for inclusion. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 00:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- But international notability still needs to be proven. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 00:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'd argue for inclusion because of the high death count. A hotel explosion resulting in a massive death count (45) and a large injury count (over 95) is pretty rare. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Already gave my opinion on this, earlier in the thread. Nobody is denying it's a tragic incident, but it just isn't notable or influential enough for 2022. The BBC and other UK outlets barely even covered it – the first I heard of it was on here. Sorry. Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- We don't include domestic events on main year articles. One foreigner being among the dead is nowhere near significant enough to warrant its inclusion. It's death toll, being unusual & being reported by the international media don't grant inclusion. How large the country is, what language they speak there & whether or not it has a year by country subarticle aren't relevant. I'd oppose excluding it no matter where in the world it happened. Some months have more events in them than others; we don't include things to make the month sections of similar length. We're less than halfway through this month, so there being fewer events in it than in the previous months of this year is to be expected. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- According to the Associated Press a "major" Baptist Church was heavily damaged in the explosion.[1]That's a significant cultural object affected. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's of substantial significance for Cuba, but it's not international. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely understand a lot of everyone's points. Seems there isn't much more to discuss. Let's just leave it off. Joshuaalee59 (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's of substantial significance for Cuba, but it's not international. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- According to the Associated Press a "major" Baptist Church was heavily damaged in the explosion.[1]That's a significant cultural object affected. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hey everyone, extremely new to this page and Wikipedia as a whole. Just learned about the Talk function. As I'm sure you all have figured out I strongly disagree on the explosion not being included on this page. It received a lot of media coverage in the US and Latin America. In addition, a Spanish tourist did die in the explosion, expanding its impact. The building was also very historic and internationally known. A comparison to the Changsa Building collapse is not fair as this occurred in a well-known building in the center of Cuba's capital (And just a few hundred steps from the center of government). There was also no coverage of the Changsa collapse in most western media as far as I'm aware. Also, there being no 2022 in Cuba page in English is a good reason to add it. Events shouldn't not be included because they occur in smaller, non-English speaking nations. On a different note, the month of May is nearly halfway over and there are five events currently documented there. (For comparison, April has 13 events listed by the 12th and March has 23). Hope you all are open to changing your minds. Joshuaalee59 (talk) 21:07, 12 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 Russo-Ukrainian 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)
- 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)
- Editors' measures of what's notable enough to include vary. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- February 28 - Not notable, put that in 2022 in sports
- March 2 - I don't see a problem with this part; 2011 for instance has an entry for the world's population hitting seven billion
- March 6 - Not notable at all, no important consequences and just one of many Russian airstrikes with a (relatively) small death toll.
- March 8 - No opinion
- March 25 - No opinion
- March 29 - increase mutual trust, no, but cut back in the direction of Chernihiv and Kyiv, yes. Keep the entry.
- April 19 - Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
- April 20 - 2022 in sport; Wimbledon decisions are not notable
- May 2 - No opinion, when they withdraw from the ISS it will be newsworthy but I'm not sure about the announcement. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think we should follow a timeline on the same format as 1939, which entries on the Spanish Civil War and World War II can be used as models. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- The threat of the leaving the ISS is definitely not notable. They made the same threat multiple times in the previous weeks: Russia threatens to leave International Space Station program (again). It will be notable if it actually happens. Right now it's just a bunch of worthless empty threats. --McSly (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Then the entry should be deleted. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- The threat of the leaving the ISS is definitely not notable. They made the same threat multiple times in the previous weeks: Russia threatens to leave International Space Station program (again). It will be notable if it actually happens. Right now it's just a bunch of worthless empty threats. --McSly (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- all of them, (except for the May 2nd one) should be kept.
- look at 2020 and there's a lot of covid-19 related stuff, every month of 2020, pretty much has 10 to 15 things about covid-19, it's the same for 2022, but this time with the Russian invasion. removing it would be pointless since we already have the same thing but with a different topic on a previous year. and the same would go for late 1939 with the start of the Second World War. in my opinion the May 2nd one should be excluded cuz it has been threatened by Russia for a while now. every other entries should be included. 4me689 (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with your comparison only in that there are far too many COVID Timeline entries in 2020! I don’t find arguments based on entirely unrelated content convincing at all. The inclusion of COVID related entries has no bearing on the relevance of these entries. JeffUK (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Why is he not internationally notable? He was one of the most well-known politicians in Europe, ran for President six times (in all cases as a major contender), was a symbol of the Russian/Eastern European far-right, took part in a coup d'état attempt, etc. The extent of his popularity was significant enough it became a subject of concern by the international media. The argument that Jean-Marie Le Pen wouldn't be placed on a main year article if he died doesn't make sense either, for obvious reasons. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Zhirinovsky & Le Pen are domestic figures. They've received a lot of international media coverage because of their political positions, but that doesn't make them internationally notable. Coup attempts, internal crises etc. usually aren't international. We include very few politicians on main year articles who haven't been head of state/gov. We've had long debates in regard to the inclusion bar for politicians, especially on here & Talk:2021. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude as per Jim Michael and TheScrubby. 4me689 (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude as per Jim Michael. TheScrubby (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Death of Shireen Abu Akleh
Another editor added Abu Akleh to the article in the 'deaths' section. I believe her death merits inclusion as she is known across the middle-east, her death was remarkable due to her young age and being a journalist killed 'in the field' and she was a Palestinian-American who worked for a Qatari news agency killed during a conflict with Israeli forces makes this an undeniably international event. The further repercussions of her death (protests and attacks at her funeral) go further to merit inclusion in the article. The 'career' section of her article goes further to explain her 'international notability' with a career spanning multiple countries in the Arab world. I think the sum of all these factors means that her death merits inclusion. I'm not sure if as a 'Death' or as an 'Event' though. If the latter it may be worthwhile waiting on the outcome of any investigations or seeing what further repercussions there are specifically outside of the immediate area before adding it. JeffUK (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- She isn't internationally notable enough for Deaths, nor is her killing internationally notable enough for Events. Thousands of journalists have worked in multiple countries. Journalists being killed isn't rare, especially in conflict zones. The reactions to it are significant, but not enough for her (death) to be on this article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude as per Jim Michael 4me689 (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude per Jim. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Include because of her general notability in the Arab World (a multinational region). Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude as per Jim, 4me and Alsoriano. TheScrubby (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude as not significant enough. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
is Lil Keed notable enough for inclusion??? any thoughts, I'll leave it up to talk page first before I give my opinion. 4me689 (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- If the article is fully detailed, I don't see any notability outside the US. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude due to him having very little international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is a clear cut case where it belongs in 2022 deaths in the United States. Exclude. TheScrubby (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude, Lil keed does not have either a Billboard Hot 100 number one single, and/or a Grammy, he has none of those, so exclude him. 4me689 (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude. Never even heard of him until his death was announced. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Changes in memberships of important international supraorganisations including the EU, Eurozone & NATO are important enough to include, but applications to join, announcements of intention to join, referendums regarding joining etc. aren't. We should include an entry only for the date each country joins, such as the entry on 2013 for Croatia joining the EU. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Include, all three organizations are pretty big, it's a big deal if a nation joins all or one of the organizations. Cuz the policies that come with it could affect a lot of people. Joining the Eurozone would bring a new currency everyone has to switch to, joining the European Union with mean that you get to travel freely around too other members States, joining NATO means you're aligning more towards new allies, and the requirements for it will affect said countries military. 4me689 (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Joining is, no doubt. Applying or saying they'll apply isn't. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose mere application requests. That never guarantees that the State will end up being part of the organization it's applying to join. Noticiable, yes, but insufficient. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- The date of joining such organisations will always merit inclusion, but as to whether announcements should be included it entirely depends on the context, I don't think we can say they will never be major events. We should be open to discussing any addition to the page. To take a hypothetical example, Switzerland ending their neutrality and merely applying to join NATO would be a huge international event. JeffUK (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- "joining the European Union with mean that you get to travel freely around too other members States" You can do that by joining the Schengen Area, and five European Union members never joined it (Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Romania, and the Republic of Ireland). Dimadick (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Applications & gov statements of intention to join gain publicity, but we usually only include accessions because that's what's important. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed with all of the above. Joining such organisations ought to be included, but mere announcements about the intention to join is nowhere near important enough for inclusion here. TheScrubby (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Many multinational companies have taken actions in regard to Russia, such as closing their operations there. Are those actions important enough to include? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Very rarely, I would say. Major financial institutions that actively impair Russia's ability to trade might count. But McDonald's certainly not, as most of their operations there are franchisees anyway. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- The opening of McDonalds in Moscow in January 1990 was an iconic moment and symbolised a new bridge between Russia and the West. Huge crowds gathered on that day, and it received international coverage. Its closing is therefore notable too, along with similar global brands, as it reverses 30 years of progress in this area of commerce. Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- It is absolutely notable, and a major event for Russia, but it's not significant enough to be on the main year page. It should remain on McDonalds and 2022 in Russia. The opening in 1990 was symbolic because pre-globalisation, McDonalds was very much a symbol of the United States, and of Capitalism, and the opening signified the ending of the cold war and was emblematic of the fall of the iron curtain. In reverse McDonalds is simply one of many corporations boycotting Russia at this time. JeffUK (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Death section pictures for May
there has just been room open up for a second image in may, though there is a lot contenders. here's a couple of contenders.
-
the 1st President of Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk
-
American-Danish Nobel nuclear physicist, Ben Roy Mottelson
-
2nd incumbent President of the United Arab Emirates, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan
-
Greek composer and musician, Vangelis
what should get the first and second pictures, and what is the order of the pictures any thoughts 4me689 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- The 2 presidents are currently there. They're from the same field, so one should be replaced with the scientist or the musician. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- If I were to go with one of the world leaders, I would go with Kravchuk 4me689 (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think in due time once there's more space for additional photos (three at minimum), we ought to include both Kravchuk and Khalifa. But for now, I think it is essential to prioritise Khalifa over Kravchuk, given that he was a incumbent leader who had served 17 years in office. As for the second photo, while I think Mottelson is more deserving, due to a lack of space we should prioritise Vangelis for the time being. TheScrubby (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- If I were to go with one of the world leaders, I would go with Kravchuk 4me689 (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Why do 2020, 2021, and 2022 have longer intros than all other year articles?
These three years have intros which extensively discuss the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, while in comparison the years 1939-1945 only have one introduction sentence at most to discuss World War II. Shouldn't there be a consistency in the introductions of year articles, and what is it? Sk8erkid182 (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- 1988, 1989, 1990 & 1991 also have long leads. The other years should have longer leads than they do. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- agreed, in fact, the longer the lead, the more important the year is. so some years have longer headers then others. 4me689 (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- 88-91 are very important years, including the end of the Cold War, so it's good for them to have long leads which include that. There are some other years that should have important events added to their leads. The September 11 attacks should be in the lead of 2001. The 2003 invasion of Iraq should be in the lead of 2003. The Great Recession should be in the leads of 2007, 2008 & 2009. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- We only perceive 2020, 2021, and 2022 to be extremely important years, even more important than 1939-1945, because of Wikipedia:Recentism. In any case I've started helping adding material to the leads of other year articles. Sk8erkid182 (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Far more people edit the recent year articles than the older ones. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- agreed, in fact, the longer the lead, the more important the year is. so some years have longer headers then others. 4me689 (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Add June Brown to list of deaths? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Opposed due to a lack of international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose for the same reason. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Whilst EastEnders is indeed syndicated worldwide, it is mostly to countries with a British diaspora and thus the international notability aspect is diluted somewhat. Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- She has an entry on the 1927 page for her birth. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- She
doesn't, andshouldn't. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC) - Then it would be appropriate to include her death in this article. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, she should be removed from 1927. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Jim Michael 2 She's there, you just have to F5 it. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, she should be removed from 1927. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- She
- She has an entry on the 1927 page for her birth. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose due to a lack of international notability. as per TheScrubby, Jim Michael, and Black Kite. 4me689 (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Sport
How do we measure which sports events are important & international enough to include? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Amount of international reliable sources covering them is the only metric, really. The list at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Sports may be good starting point. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- We currently don't include most of those. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think almost none if they're an annual event (It adds little information to have an entry in every year article saying 'X annual event happened this year too, quelle surprise', short of any specific reason to add them on a case-by-case basis. an otherwise annual event NOT happening for some reason may be more significant. Inaugural or ultimate events may make them significant enough to add, but not in all cases. The first (in a long time) international event being held in a country may be notable if the sources back up the fact it is symbolic of a wider change in international politics (say North Korea host the international table tennis championship) JeffUK (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Adding literature
Should this article include literature works or books that are published this year? What about holidays? They gain international notability right? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- If a book, in the future, becomes notable enough that it's year of initial publication is really significant, then yes. E.g. Lord of the Rings' publication is noted in 1954 . I doubt very much that will happen within the year itself though. An example of a holiday that you think should be added would help discussion JeffUK (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, does Christmas or Easter count if it gains status around the world? It will help other people learn new events as well. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think Christmas and Easter have very much gained status around the world already. Adding the *date* of Easter (and other major religious festivals) in a particular year is not something I would be particularly opposed to as they do change each year. Christmas is normally December 25th most years though.. JeffUK (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- But what would happen if I edited the article and added local and state events that do not gain any international notability? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Another editor might remove them if they didn't feel they fit within the scope of the article. Why are you asking, do you have a point you're trying to make? If so making it explicitly might be more productive JeffUK (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- I was asking because I was making a point about literature, holidays, and local events in general and overall. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Books are rarely important enough to include. The Satanic Verses is a rare example of one that is, because of the major internation reaction to it.
- As has been stated many times, we don't include domestic - let alone local - events.
- Public holidays are usually regular. Most aren't international & even those that are shouldn't be included because they're not important events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- The publishing of literature is rarely notable unless it causes a huge world event that will affect the world for years to come. Books normally go in 2022 in literature. 4me689 (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Even if I research literature in 2022 and there are even link and resources, do they count as reliable? Why not? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- You may be able to provide reliable sources that a book was published in 2022, the question is whether that makes it on on topic for this article. There is general consensus that the topic of the article is internationally important things that happen within the year. The publication of a book is unlikely to meet that definition on it's own. JeffUK (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- What does reliable sources for 2022 include? 76.20.110.116 (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- It may include almost everything, like the website that increases vocabulary and language skills. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, reliable sources are well-defined. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- But how are reliable source are well defined? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- That link explains that in detail. The more relevant point here is that to be on main year articles, things have to be internationally important. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- But how are reliable source are well defined? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, reliable sources are well-defined. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- It may include almost everything, like the website that increases vocabulary and language skills. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- What does reliable sources for 2022 include? 76.20.110.116 (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- You may be able to provide reliable sources that a book was published in 2022, the question is whether that makes it on on topic for this article. There is general consensus that the topic of the article is internationally important things that happen within the year. The publication of a book is unlikely to meet that definition on it's own. JeffUK (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Even if I research literature in 2022 and there are even link and resources, do they count as reliable? Why not? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- I was asking because I was making a point about literature, holidays, and local events in general and overall. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Another editor might remove them if they didn't feel they fit within the scope of the article. Why are you asking, do you have a point you're trying to make? If so making it explicitly might be more productive JeffUK (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- But what would happen if I edited the article and added local and state events that do not gain any international notability? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think Christmas and Easter have very much gained status around the world already. Adding the *date* of Easter (and other major religious festivals) in a particular year is not something I would be particularly opposed to as they do change each year. Christmas is normally December 25th most years though.. JeffUK (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, does Christmas or Easter count if it gains status around the world? It will help other people learn new events as well. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Reverts over the Ukraine entries
In regards to this edit that was reverted here and here– Wjfox2005:
- What makes a technical complaint about refugee corridors internationally notable? This entry isn't about something important happening (like a new supraorganization being founded or a major military battle), just a complaint about a Russo-Ukrainian internal dispute.
- No, it's not. These kinds events are very common and don't usually have spots on main year articles. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Robb Elementary School shooting
Should the Robb Elementary School shooting be listed? I understand that mass shootings are all too common in the U.S., but one at an elementary school (with over 19 deaths; 18 children) is pretty rare. Sandy Hook is listed in 2012 and Parkland shooting is listed in 2018, the Robb shooting already exceeds the death toll of Parkland. Just curious about input, I know this might get heated. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- None of them should be included, because they're domestic events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's what I was thinking in terms if this can't be posted then Sandy Hook and Parkland shootings shouldn't be either. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's common for things to be added to main year articles which shouldn't be. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's what I was thinking in terms if this can't be posted then Sandy Hook and Parkland shootings shouldn't be either. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- After seeing the international reactions, high death count and though a common tragic event in the U.S., I feel that Stoneman Douglas and Sandy Hook do merit inclusion in their respective years and so should this one. Count me in as Include. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely exclude. Of course these shootings are always tragic, but firstly they are purely domestic and secondly they happen so regularly in the United States. Unless it leads to meaningful change in the US, I don’t think they’d meet the bar - and even if it did, it’d be a borderline inclusion at most because it would still be domestic. TheScrubby (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Columbine should also be excluded. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think Columbine is the exception here, it made major headlines worldwide and of course spawned films etc., whereas nowadays US school shootings get a few headlines and then disappear. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Columbine should be kept. In addition to the points put forwards by Black Kite, I should note that it helped inspire mass shootings around the world , such as in the Kerch Polytechnic College massacre and the Erfurt school massacre. (See also here) Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Columbine should also be excluded. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude. Domestic incident. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Include. Years can have domestic events, so you should add this to the article. There is nothing wrong with this. 76.20.110.116 (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- We have Year in Topic for a reason. Otherwise, why bother having pages such as 2022 in the United States? TheScrubby (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- This may be a reason, but it gained attention throughout international and global. It also sparked some new measures. 76.20.110.116 (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- International coverage doesn't equate international notability - that's something which has been firmly established here for well over a year. As for "new measures", it is far too soon to make such a claim, and at this stage borders on WP:CRYSTAL. If this event leads to meaningful gun reform in the United States (as the Port Arthur massacre did in Australia), then we could revisit this and maybe include this as a borderline case. TheScrubby (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- This may be a reason, but it gained attention throughout international and global. It also sparked some new measures. 76.20.110.116 (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- We have Year in Topic for a reason. Otherwise, why bother having pages such as 2022 in the United States? TheScrubby (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Include. Years can have domestic events, so you should add this to the article. There is nothing wrong with this. 76.20.110.116 (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Include There are many and tons of reasons why it should be included. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Include because of the high death toll and the media coverage. I wouldn't completely call it domestic, as it also seems to have had an impact, albeit devoloping, on Mexico–United States relations.[1][2] Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agreed with you more, it had gain attention nationally and there are tons of new sources out there. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- safe2say, I now think inclusion, I now say inclusion because a lot of world leaders are talking about it. it's safe to say that a lot of people outside the United States are talking about it after all. I no longer think that it's a domestic event. I now think it's worldwide news. I think you can 100% no longer say that it's a domestic event. 4me689 (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Many events have a lot of media coverage & talk. World leaders have given statements after many domestic attacks/disasters. They don't make it internationally notable. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Include. Yes, shootings in America are common, but this is the horrific barbarity of gunning down innocent small children, attacking them for no reason but just out of hate of humanity. This is a very significant event. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- But the shooting itself has no impact on global affairs.
- The main article is supposed to be about global events, or events that have significant impact between countries. 73.12.209.248 (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Disagreed, any event can be included within an article no matter how local, national, or global it is. It is digital evolution, not limited. 76.20.110.116 (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not in main year articles; they're for important, international events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t know how many times this needs to be said, but to all those who are saying include, international coverage doesn’t equate international notability. In response to StellarNerd, yes it was a horrific event but we don’t include events based on our own emotional reactions - we include them based on international notability and significance. It is way too soon for this event to be deemed one of international notability, given how many mass shootings there are in the US and how none of them really led to change in the US. It would be WP:CRYSTAL to add the event because one assumes this’ll lead to any change of international consequence. It is also wildly inappropriate that one of the users deleted the note on the 2022 page and added this event anyway without any firm consensus in favour of inclusion. This event simply doesn’t meet the bar at all - though again, we can always revisit it if it does indeed prove to have international consequence. TheScrubby (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, any event can be added in to year articles if they recently happened, since there are many sources and newspapers are the sources. So the list can be longer to help a lot of people. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- It certainly shouldn't. Making the articles much longer isn't the goal of main year articles, which are for international events. There are many subarticles for domestic events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- To add to what Jim Michael has said, it's been demonstrated by several users over the last year especially that we actually need to be more selective with what should be deemed relevant for these pages, and that recent year pages especially have easily exceeded the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article. TheScrubby (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- One of the arguments for including this is that some victims were (likely) foreign nationals. However, that's true of many domestic attacks, disasters etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- This massacre has riveted the world media for now nearly a week. It's a significant event on a global scale. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident & Depp v. Heard have received a huge amount of international media coverage for a lot longer. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- This massacre has riveted the world media for now nearly a week. It's a significant event on a global scale. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- One of the arguments for including this is that some victims were (likely) foreign nationals. However, that's true of many domestic attacks, disasters etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- To add to what Jim Michael has said, it's been demonstrated by several users over the last year especially that we actually need to be more selective with what should be deemed relevant for these pages, and that recent year pages especially have easily exceeded the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article. TheScrubby (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- It certainly shouldn't. Making the articles much longer isn't the goal of main year articles, which are for international events. There are many subarticles for domestic events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, any event can be added in to year articles if they recently happened, since there are many sources and newspapers are the sources. So the list can be longer to help a lot of people. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude per all above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- But honestly, it had gained international attention throughout media and the location. There are tons of reliable sources including the television news. -- 76.20.110.116 (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- No-one's disputing that it has received a lot of international media coverage, but that doesn't make it internationally notable. The same goes for Smith-Rock & Depp-Heard. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.gob.mx/sre/prensa/comunicado-no-195?state=published
- ^ "World leaders 'horrified' by 'murder of innocent children' in Texas". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2022-05-26.
is Ray Liotta notable enough for inclusion?
he starred in a lot of very successful films, like Field of Dreams, Something Wild, and Goodfellas among many others. he also starred as Tommy Vercetti in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
he is very notable enough for inclusion, I wonder what the talk page has to say about this. just please give a good reason and don't be too basic. mainly because most of the people here are getting too strict about inclusion. and give nothing other than "too domestic 2022 the United States" as their response. 4me689 (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- As I said on my edit summary, I think although he is not an Oscar recipient, Liotta should make the cut, albeit as a borderline inclusion. Because he’s borderline though, I don’t think he should be prioritised for an image. TheScrubby (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- His only awards are minor, US awards. He has no international notability. Many thousands of actors have starred in internationally popular films. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I can see and support the argument for inclusion as he has appeared in some notable films, death is gaining international coverage and though he's no Eastwood, Pacino or DeNiro, he's not a nobody too. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree and would lean towards borderline inclusion. I see obituaries (proper ones, not copy and paste agency ones) in heavyweight newspapers from around the world. Black Kite (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Include. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's all due to his popularity & unexpected death. He doesn't gain the notability of his films, nor become internationally notable because he has many fans in many countries, died overseas & his death was reported in many sources. Thousands of entertainers are domestic figures who have fans in other countries & whose deaths are widely reported. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Tennis
As we don't usually include any tennis tournaments, it makes no sense to include Novak Djokovic being deported from Australia & not able to defend his Australian Open title, nor the banning of Russian & Belarusian players from The Championships, Wimbledon. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Jim, have you considered finding another hobby in life? i.e. something that doesn't involve deleting everything on Wikipedia, which you seem utterly obsessed with, to a frankly bizarre extent. Seriously, give it a rest.Anyway, 2022 and indeed all years should provide a decent "overview" of the year's main events, to inform people looking back on them in the future. Djokovic and his deportation case received MASSIVE, WORLDWIDE news coverage, making it clearly a notable event for this year. I believe that's all that needs to be said on this matter. Wjfox2005 (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)- Part of the comment striked for violating the No Personal Attacks policy.Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 03:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Have you considered not adding so many insufficiently notable events & people to main year articles? You claim that the problem is me removing them, but I'm one of several editors who frequently remove insufficiently notable things, including those which you've added/reinstated. The biggest problem with main year articles is the additions of what shouldn't be on them. I don't remove most things, let alone everything.
- Djokovic is the best singles player in a sport which has millions of fans across many countries. That's why the media reported it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Personally, anything that gets "global" coverage is worth mentioning here, so I think Djokovic's deportation is worth mentioning. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- On that basis, the Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident & Depp v. Heard should be included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Jim is doing a good job, and always seeks consensus before removing any content. We must take care to ensure that Year in topic is as less country-centrist as possible and not just another news portal. He doesn't need to search for "another hobby in life". We must insist that international coverage ≠ international notability. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and we don't usually include who won the grand slams because tennis is considered to be insufficiently internationally notable for main year articles. Therefore, it makes no sense to include who can't enter them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- We already have the 2022 in tennis page. That would be the appropriate venue to include an entry on Djokovic. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 03:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- And the banning of Russian & Belarusian players from Wimbledon. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to present my points... in points.
1) Novak Djokovic has won 20 Grand Slam titles. Therefore, he is notable.
2) The most often case in which people are deported are illegal immigrants and various smugglers. These people are (bar a select few) not notable.
3) If a notable person had an action taken against them (deportation) that almost no other notable people have had happen to them, that is a departure from the norm.
4) Based on Point 3, I find it notable that a notable person was deported. His inability to defend his title is not notable, so I'm fine losing that tidbit.
Thanks, The Voivodeship King (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see deportations as important enough, even if of internationally notable people, in unusual circumstances. The only exception would be if the deportee were a head of state/gov. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Angelo Sodano
I think Angelo Sodano merits inclusion, he was the Vatican's longtime Sec. of State, influential cardinal within the church, a notable figure in the Church's sex scandal and was the Dean of the College of Cardinals for almost 15 years. I know we don't post cardinals that often here but I think Sodano makes an argument for inclusion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Inclusion, cuz what I can see from this dude, this dude was kind of important, though I think this is kind of borderline. 4me689 (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Inclusion He was Holy See's Secretary of State, the equivalent of "Prime Minister", so there is neither doubt nor debate. All of them should be included. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Inclusion See this AP article for more information about his general importance:[1] Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 03:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have no objections with his inclusion, yeah. My reservation is more with regards to image, which I don’t think he should necessarily take priority over other prominent figures who have passed this month. TheScrubby (talk) 07:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Angelo Sodano, once-powerful Vatican prelate, dies at 94". AP NEWS. 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
President of New Caledonia briefly, but this is merely an overseas territory of France, not a country or state. His two-line article and the fact that Government of New Caledonia doesn't exist suggests that he shouldn't be included here. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Removed due to having no international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)