This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Death section pictures for July (Result: Robert Curl, Shinzo Abe, and José Eduardo dos Santos)
there has just been room that has open up for a second image in July, and here's the contenders for death section pictures in July
-
American Nobel chemist, Robert Curl
-
2nd President of Angola, José Eduardo dos Santos
-
57th President of Mexico, Luis Echeverría57th President of Mexico, Luis Echeverría
-
12th Prime Minister and 51st President of Peru, Francisco Morales-Bermúdez
in my opinion the second picture should go to Robert curl, as we already have a world leader picture in the form of Shinzo Abe, the third picture should go to dos Santos cuz of his longevity as the leader of Angola, I wonder what everyone's opinions is. 4me689 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- My money's on Curl too. At the end of the month, I think it would be Curl, Abe, Dos Santos (but please, not the pic you're proposing: I don't think it's appropriate to have the flag of a country that isn't his in the photo behind him) and a fourth one depending on who will die. And if no one more relevant dies, I would support Brook (for his important role in show business) or Echevarría (the Hispanic quota that I think the Year in Topic is missing). I "long" for some important woman to pass away...this Year in Topic is very masculinized. All this if there is room for four images. _-_Alsorian (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- It should be Curl & Abe until there's space for a third. Abe is by far the most notable person & Curl by far the most notable non-politician to die this month. The pics should be of people from different fields; it's not justified for both to be of politicians when a highly-notable scientist also died. The other politicians shown here are nowhere near as notable as Abe. Japan is the world's third-largest economy. None of the other politicians are from countries which are developed or among the ten largest economies. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I remember Jim Michael saying last year that if more than one highly notable head of government/state died in a single month, it would make sense for there to be an exception to the variety rule and that we should in that case prioritise these figures. In the case of this month, I feel quite strongly that this scenario applies - it goes without saying that Abe should get the first image (mainly due to the circumstances of his death), but the second image should instead go to dos Santos - given that he was head of his country for almost 40 years (and was the second-longest serving President of any African state) and was a highly significant and influential figure in the continent. TheScrubby (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Dos Santos is nowhere near internationally important enough to be an exception. Angola is one of the least developed countries, so despite his very long term as leader, he didn't have major international effects. Even if Abe had died naturally, he'd have a photo because he's by far the most notable person to die this month. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think you understate dos Santos's international significance, which global obituaries empasise, particularly with his involvement in the Congo Wars - and Angola is one of the least developed countries in large part due to (arguably) the legacy of dos Santos, as well as the civil war that he presided over until 2001. I'd be curious to hear what others have to say, but I thoroughly disagree with the premise that dos Santos was nowhere near internationally important enough to be an exception (I can't quite say the same about the other leaders who passed this month though). TheScrubby (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that dos Santos kept his country poor, but that doesn't increase his notability. The DRC is also a LDC. The First & Second Congo Wars are continued with the Ituri & Kivu conflicts, so I can't see how we can give him high notability based on his input into those. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fidel Ramos has been added, meaning that all 3 photos for this month are of politicians, which shouldn't be the case. Curl has a Nobel in Chemistry & should be one of the 3. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- in my opinion it should be the same as usual, Abe, curl, and Dos Santos.
- Ramos, does not have the same big affect on his country that, abe and Dos Santos had on theirs. 4me689 (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- While I have already expressed that this month should be an exception where the images should all go to the (highly notable) leaders who passed, if we were to omit one of the three I’d agree with 4me689 and prioritise dos Santos over Ramos. TheScrubby (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think you understate dos Santos's international significance, which global obituaries empasise, particularly with his involvement in the Congo Wars - and Angola is one of the least developed countries in large part due to (arguably) the legacy of dos Santos, as well as the civil war that he presided over until 2001. I'd be curious to hear what others have to say, but I thoroughly disagree with the premise that dos Santos was nowhere near internationally important enough to be an exception (I can't quite say the same about the other leaders who passed this month though). TheScrubby (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Dos Santos is nowhere near internationally important enough to be an exception. Angola is one of the least developed countries, so despite his very long term as leader, he didn't have major international effects. Even if Abe had died naturally, he'd have a photo because he's by far the most notable person to die this month. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I think that we should limit the month to three photos and those being Curl, Abe, and Zawahiri. I think these three have international notoriety that outpaces other people being considered.PaulRKil (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Representing four different fields would be better: Peter Brook, Robert Curl, Shinzo Abe & Ayman al-Zawahiri. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Ongoing to describe COVID-19 pandemic (Result: keep)
It is unsure about the situation of the COVID-19 Pandemic which is either ongoing or not around but it is not so much of a big deal now. 86.128.56.73 (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- While the impacts have been lessened since 2020 and 2021, it is clearly ongoing. It continues to evolve new variants, continues to affect society and the economy and public health in numerous ways, and billions of people still aren't fully vaccinated – all of which is more than enough to justify inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agree per Wjfox2005. The Voivodeship King (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
David Warner (Result: exclusion)
Just going to start this section for reference on his inclusion. I'm leaning towards include as he's won an Emmy, appeared in multiple renowned films (some international films at that) and (IMO) has just as much reason to be included as James Caan. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- If we're including Caan, Liotta & Warner - all of whom have very few awards & aren't considered to have been among the best actors - we're going to include many each year. I think we should exclude all of them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm inclined towards a neutral position, leaning towards opposing - from my point of view Warner's notability wasn't as great as that of either Caan or Liotta, and even those two are borderline inclusions at most. TheScrubby (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Using my usual metric of "proper" obituaries in international heavyweight sources, although many do exist a number of them are AP type copy and pastes. Compared (certainly) to Caan and (to a lesser extent) Liotta, there doesn't seem to be the coverage there. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Bill Russell (Result: exclusion)
Should Bill Russell also be excluded from the 1934 article as well or keep him there? He lacks international nobility but I’m curious. Kyu (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude from both due to insufficient international notability. The inclusion criteria for Births sections are the same as for Deaths sections. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Jim Michael, this seems to be a trend when non-notable people die, they get added to the birth sections and they don't get removed cuz older years ain't as cleaned up. 4me689 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ahh I see. I’d figure I ask cause I wasn’t so sure. I also added the importance tag on Pat Carroll because I’m not 100% sure if she should be here because not a lot of people even heard of her, aside from playing as the voice of Ursula in The Little Mermaid. I also don’t think Nichelle Nichols should be here either because she is only known for playing as Lt. Uhura on the original Star Trek series. Kyu (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning on exclude for Russell. Definitely exclude for Carroll, while Nichelle Nichols could possibly be a borderline inclusion due to the prominence and significance of her role in one of the most internationally notable television shows of all time - though I’ll wait and see what others have to say. TheScrubby (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude Nichols due to a lack of international notability. Playing a major role in an internationally popular show is true of hundreds of domestic actors & doesn't create international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning on exclude for Russell. Definitely exclude for Carroll, while Nichelle Nichols could possibly be a borderline inclusion due to the prominence and significance of her role in one of the most internationally notable television shows of all time - though I’ll wait and see what others have to say. TheScrubby (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Ahh I see. I’d figure I ask cause I wasn’t so sure. I also added the importance tag on Pat Carroll because I’m not 100% sure if she should be here because not a lot of people even heard of her, aside from playing as the voice of Ursula in The Little Mermaid. I also don’t think Nichelle Nichols should be here either because she is only known for playing as Lt. Uhura on the original Star Trek series. Kyu (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Jim Michael, this seems to be a trend when non-notable people die, they get added to the birth sections and they don't get removed cuz older years ain't as cleaned up. 4me689 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely 100% include for Bill Russell. An 11-time NBA champion, more championships than any other individual in the history of American team sports. Beyond that he also broke down barriers for African-Americans in professional sports and was an icon of the American Civil Rights movement. I don't see how this could even be a question, frankly, especially when the article includes a "sprint canoeist," a sport no one has ever heard of, with a three-line long article, simply because they won an Olympic gold medal in 1956. As for Nichelle Nichols, I also say include because of the ongoing global cultural relevance of Star Trek, even if not everyone knows her name. Besides that, her deceased Star Trek co-stars were all included in their respective articles: DeForest Kelley in 1999, James Doohan in 2005, Majel Barrett in 2008, and Leonard Nimoy in 2015. Dragonbacon (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- All you say about Russell is domestic, which supports excluding him from here & that his place is on 2022 deaths in the United States. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- To User:TheScrubby So I’ll exclude Carroll but can she stay in the 1927 article or exclude her there too? Kyu (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- If one's death is excluded from a year article, it goes without saying that they would also be excluded on the year article for when they were born. So yes. And regarding the Star Trek cast, I have no real issue with the inclusion of Nicholls, though I would argue that Barrett ought to be excluded as she wasn't part of the core cast. TheScrubby (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- To User:TheScrubby So I’ll exclude Carroll but can she stay in the 1927 article or exclude her there too? Kyu (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- With all due respect Jim, I don't know who made you the authority on what is "domestic" and what is "international." Please see my response to TheScrubby below for Russell's international notability. Dragonbacon (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- By what standard are we defining "international notability" here? I know this has been debated endlessly before but it really does feel like a fatally flawed system when it would have you exclude Bill Russell and include Yelizaveta Dementyeva. Dragonbacon (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Final point: if an Olympic gold medal is all it takes to be "internationally notable," then Bill Russell automatically qualifies because he did, in fact, win an Olympic gold medal. In the same year as Dementyeva, even. Dragonbacon (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's been discussed on-and-off over the last year and a half, but there has been a consistent issue when it comes to who should be included so far as sports figures go. The only real points of consensus we have r.e. the sports field is that those who won individual Olympic gold medals (not won in teams) are included and that the most prominent sports figures from the most internationally played sports (such as cricket, soccer and tennis) are included. Sports that are only popularly played regionally (such as baseball and rugby) or predominately domestically/one country (such as gridiron football or Aussie Rules football) are a lot less certain, though it'd be nice if we got some consistency and clarity regarding this. I'm largely staying neutral on Russell, though from my perspective his notability and significance seems to be primarily limited to the United States. TheScrubby (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- A few points: basketball is absolutely played internationally. The NBA is followed internationally and its stars are known the world over. Virtually every country has its own basketball league, many of which are extremely popular stateside (e.g. China and Eastern Europe). It may not be "the most" internationally played but that is an arbitrary measure. Russell is well known internationally, there are obituaries in major newspapers all over the world, in many languages, and on Wikipedia there are at present articles on Russell in 53 languages. He is a titan of sports in the 20th century, omitting him from this article is basically the same as omitting Babe Ruth from the 1948 article, or Gordie Howe from 2016. He won more championships than anyone in the history of North American team sports, both as a player and as a coach, and is one of only five people inducted into the Hall of Fame (an institution with inductees from all over the world) as a player and coach. I understand that not everyone can be included but I don't think the admins here understand the degree of prominence Russell's shadow casts over international sports. With all due respect to Yelizaveta Dementyeva, who I'm sure was a nice person, people are not coming to this page to see her listed. She won a gold medal in one olympic games in a sport no one has ever heard of, and her wiki is 3 lines long. People come here to see Bill Russell. To not include him is to make articles from recent years less complete and informative than articles of past years, where athletes of far lower stature than Russell are included. Dragonbacon (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- His only significant international notability is an Olympic team medal, which by consensus is insufficient. Outside the US & his sport, very few people have heard of him. It's highly unlikely that the equivalent of him from any other country would gain support for inclusion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- A few points: basketball is absolutely played internationally. The NBA is followed internationally and its stars are known the world over. Virtually every country has its own basketball league, many of which are extremely popular stateside (e.g. China and Eastern Europe). It may not be "the most" internationally played but that is an arbitrary measure. Russell is well known internationally, there are obituaries in major newspapers all over the world, in many languages, and on Wikipedia there are at present articles on Russell in 53 languages. He is a titan of sports in the 20th century, omitting him from this article is basically the same as omitting Babe Ruth from the 1948 article, or Gordie Howe from 2016. He won more championships than anyone in the history of North American team sports, both as a player and as a coach, and is one of only five people inducted into the Hall of Fame (an institution with inductees from all over the world) as a player and coach. I understand that not everyone can be included but I don't think the admins here understand the degree of prominence Russell's shadow casts over international sports. With all due respect to Yelizaveta Dementyeva, who I'm sure was a nice person, people are not coming to this page to see her listed. She won a gold medal in one olympic games in a sport no one has ever heard of, and her wiki is 3 lines long. People come here to see Bill Russell. To not include him is to make articles from recent years less complete and informative than articles of past years, where athletes of far lower stature than Russell are included. Dragonbacon (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's been discussed on-and-off over the last year and a half, but there has been a consistent issue when it comes to who should be included so far as sports figures go. The only real points of consensus we have r.e. the sports field is that those who won individual Olympic gold medals (not won in teams) are included and that the most prominent sports figures from the most internationally played sports (such as cricket, soccer and tennis) are included. Sports that are only popularly played regionally (such as baseball and rugby) or predominately domestically/one country (such as gridiron football or Aussie Rules football) are a lot less certain, though it'd be nice if we got some consistency and clarity regarding this. I'm largely staying neutral on Russell, though from my perspective his notability and significance seems to be primarily limited to the United States. TheScrubby (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Final point: if an Olympic gold medal is all it takes to be "internationally notable," then Bill Russell automatically qualifies because he did, in fact, win an Olympic gold medal. In the same year as Dementyeva, even. Dragonbacon (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- All you say about Russell is domestic, which supports excluding him from here & that his place is on 2022 deaths in the United States. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Bernd Bransch was an Olympic gold medalist in a team event and he is in the section for deaths in June, so on those grounds Bill Russell absolutely should be included in deaths in July. Unknown artist (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- That’s not really much of an argument for inclusion, when another figure with insufficient notability falls through the cracks. If that’s his only claim to notability, being a non-individual Olympic gold medalist, Bransch should be excluded. TheScrubby (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Exclude due to lack of international notability. Russell was a purely domestic sports figure with a cultural legacy that is textbook Americentric. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
When a sport's premier league is in a particular nation, it doesn't seem fair to discount the achievements of a person in that league. Say, a Spanish footballer with an entire career in La Liga. Would a basketballer with a very strong career between the Venezuelan basketball league and Argentinian basketball league be given a place here, because they played notably in two countries? It seems short-sighted to discount playing in one league because it is domestic.
Specifically in the case of Bill Russell, I quote from his page: "Russell is widely considered to be one of the greatest basketball players of all time.", "he captained the gold-medal winning U.S. national basketball team at the 1956 Summer Olympics.", " In 2011, Barack Obama awarded Russell the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his accomplishments on the court and in the civil rights movement." In addition, he is tied with Michael Jordan for most NBA MVP awards. Tied. With the G.O.A.T.. He has more MVP awards than LeBron James, Magic Johnson and "his prominent rival" Wilt Chamberlain. If he were a modern era player, he would have a greater international history through the Olympics, but in his playing career, the basketball was for amateurs only, not optional based on players as it was today. Russell CHOSE not to play in the NBA immediately, postponing his debut to play for the United States. Before he had played an NBA game, Russell captained the team to a gold medal. As a pre-rookie. By choosing to play the Olympics and winning a gold medal, in addition to the other achievements of Bill Russell, he deserves a place on the Deaths List. Sincerely, The Voivodeship King (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- Russell is very notable in the US, but has little international notability. Some sports are much more internationally notable than others. Some sportspeople are very well known in one country, but little-known in the rest of the world. Try mentioning Russell to people who aren't American or basketball fans - they've very unlikely to have a clue who you're talking about. The only reason I've heard of him is because his death was added to this article. If I didn't read Wikipedia, I'd still not have heard of him.
- A solely domestic Spanish footballer wouldn't be included on main year articles. A basketball player would be unlikely to have a very high-achieving career in multiple countries, but if he did he could be eligible for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'll concede defeat on Russell, but one point you often make is that knowing who somebody is is not a criteria for inclusion. Take the debate earlier this year about Dwayne Johnson that spun off from the death of Scott Hall. You argued that it did not matter that Johnson was very well known, because he wasn't notable. Regards, The Voivodeship King (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- A person being well-known (even internationally) isn't enough for them to be on main year articles. If it were, many reality show participants, socialites & other 'famous-for-being-famous' people would be included. I didn't say Johnson isn't notable - I said he has little international notability. That's why I don't think he should be included, despite being known of by hundreds of millions of people across many countries. Some other frequent editors of main year articles have said similar things in regard to well-known people whose notability is solely or mainly in one country. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough. The Voivodeship King (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- A person being well-known (even internationally) isn't enough for them to be on main year articles. If it were, many reality show participants, socialites & other 'famous-for-being-famous' people would be included. I didn't say Johnson isn't notable - I said he has little international notability. That's why I don't think he should be included, despite being known of by hundreds of millions of people across many countries. Some other frequent editors of main year articles have said similar things in regard to well-known people whose notability is solely or mainly in one country. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'll concede defeat on Russell, but one point you often make is that knowing who somebody is is not a criteria for inclusion. Take the debate earlier this year about Dwayne Johnson that spun off from the death of Scott Hall. You argued that it did not matter that Johnson was very well known, because he wasn't notable. Regards, The Voivodeship King (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Nichelle Nichols (Result: exclusion)
There seems to be a lack of consensus on whether or not to include Nichelle Nichols. I believe for many of the reasons stated for other American actors and athletes who have died in 2022, we should Exclude her. PaulRKil (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. She's a domestic figure who, like many actors, also has fans in other countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think she should be included. She was tremendously important in the history of television for being the first African-American woman in a significant role. Certainly better known abroad than James Caan, Richard Taruskin, and several others who appear on the list. Her death has been reported in lots of different countries. [1] [2] [3] [4] At a quick glance, popular culture (film&music) on the list is currently represented by 21 white men, 3 white women and Ms. Lata Mangeshkar as the single woman of color. On contrast, 52 athletes are included, even if they're not internationally known. We should include Nichelle Nichols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1110:118:A377:15E1:DBE0:6326:5D9C (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- She was important in the history of US TV only. James Caan is far more well-known outside the US. Millions of people outside the US know of Caan & his work, but few people outside the US, other than Star Trek fans, have heard of her. The deaths of both of them were reported in many countries due to them having fans in many countries, with the coverage of her being Star Trek-centred. We don't make exceptions for people based on their demographic, and Americans are over-represented. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- For once, I'd agree with including her. The reason she's not known by name is that she was the only regular female character in Star Trek (so most people would recognise her if you said "Uhura", even though a lot of them can't spell it). Thus she's important as a black woman on TV. I don't know about other countries, but she was practically the only black woman regularly seen on British TV in the 1960s, too. Deb (talk) 07:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- She was important in the history of US TV only. James Caan is far more well-known outside the US. Millions of people outside the US know of Caan & his work, but few people outside the US, other than Star Trek fans, have heard of her. The deaths of both of them were reported in many countries due to them having fans in many countries, with the coverage of her being Star Trek-centred. We don't make exceptions for people based on their demographic, and Americans are over-represented. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude, she wasn't as popular as her Star Trek co-stars, not to mention she barely even had any other major roles outside Star Trek. 4me689 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think she should be included. She was tremendously important in the history of television for being the first African-American woman in a significant role. Certainly better known abroad than James Caan, Richard Taruskin, and several others who appear on the list. Her death has been reported in lots of different countries. [1] [2] [3] [4] At a quick glance, popular culture (film&music) on the list is currently represented by 21 white men, 3 white women and Ms. Lata Mangeshkar as the single woman of color. On contrast, 52 athletes are included, even if they're not internationally known. We should include Nichelle Nichols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1110:118:A377:15E1:DBE0:6326:5D9C (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Does Olivia Newton-John deserve a photo? (Result: yes)
I think she does. She had a notable career in both music AND film. 2601:204:CF01:1840:F0C0:DFE3:49BD:3976 (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like someone's already put a photo in there. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I’m thinking Newton-John shouldn’t have an image here as we already have Sidney Poitier in January, William Hurt in March and Jean-Louis Trintignant in June. I understand that Peter Brook and James Caan’s images aren’t in the July section and I don’t think Newton-John fits in the August category for images. I was going to say the same thing about Fidel Ramos as we have Benigno Aquino III in 2021, his mother Corazon in 2009, but apparently dos Santos died the same day as Shinzō Abe and it’s kinda silly to have three politicians since Robert Curl is the only one of the three who isn’t a politician that deserved to have an image. Kyu (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Well we need to have a notable entertainer of some kind for August. And Oliva Newton John is highly notable; her acting career aside, her singing career had top ten hits in the US, UK, Australia, I mean that proves notability. 2601:204:CF01:1840:F0C0:DFE3:49BD:3976 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- She's by far the most notable person to die this month, so she should have a photo. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Finally we can include the photo of a woman...and a very important one. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes! Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Anne Heche (Result: exclusion)
I don’t think Heche should be here although she was an Emmy winner. Should she be excluded? Kyu (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude due to insufficient international notability. Most of the coverage surrounding her death are due to the (tragic) circumstances of it rather than the notability of her career itself. TheScrubby (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude due to a lack of international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude due to a lack of international notability, I didn't even heard of her until she died. 4me689 (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- @4me689:, that qualifies you, not the actress. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Stabbing of Salman Rushdie (Result: borderline inclusion)
Can we add the stabbing of Salman Rushdie here? He is an internationally renowned figure who has gotten controversy from several countries governments. 2600:100C:A203:16B3:3117:7804:B27A:9C3E (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- Done. --Gaois (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- An international figure indeed, and a notable event in 2022 that clearly deserves a mention here. Wjfox2005 (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- International news, but with little international repercussion. I have my doubts that it should be included. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- See the Stabbing of Salman Rushdie#Political response section. Iran. Nuclear talks. "US Department of Justice's August 5, 2022 allegation that Iran had planned to assassinate US national security advisor John Bolton in 2020... Hezbollah supporters hailed the attacker on social media, calling him a hero, and using the hashtag "holy stabbing" in their posts". Sounds like international repercussions to me. --Gaois (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- But they aren't. The reaction of Hezbollah supporters (and Iranian authorities) is natural and that Bolton could be the target of an assassination attempt (nothing is confirmed) is not a reaction at all to the Rushdie stabbing. There've been no sanctions, no emergency meetings, no expulsions of diplomats...I'm missing things. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- See the Stabbing of Salman Rushdie#Political response section. Iran. Nuclear talks. "US Department of Justice's August 5, 2022 allegation that Iran had planned to assassinate US national security advisor John Bolton in 2020... Hezbollah supporters hailed the attacker on social media, calling him a hero, and using the hashtag "holy stabbing" in their posts". Sounds like international repercussions to me. --Gaois (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- Persisting front page news worldwide. Include. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Alsoriano - plus Rushdie was wounded, not assassinated. Exclude. TheScrubby (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- Include It received worldwide news coverage and the way I look at it, if it can make it to the Wiki's In the News section, there shouldn't be a problem with it being in this year's article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose/Doubtful It dropped off the news headlines very quickly. It would be different if it is definitely discovered that there was a political motive - and exactly what that motive was. Deb (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Piero Angela (Result: exclusion)
Is Piero Angela notable enough for inclusion. this dude has already been added to the death section twice already, so I'm making the talk page just to see what everyone's thoughts is, any thoughts??? 4me689 (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude due to a lack of international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude per Jim Michael. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude - agree. Deb (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Include, as per @4me689 Redcoat1945 (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Wolfgang Petersen (Result: borderline inclusion)
Thoughts on Wolfgang Petersen being included in the death section? I'm creating a talk page discussion about this for reference. I'm leaning towards inclusion for the fact he made blockbuster films, was a well known director and was a two-time Oscar nominee. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose because although he was a successful filmmaker in his native Germany as well as the US, he has no awards. Nominations aren't important enough. He isn't considered to have been one of the best filmmakers. His notability is significantly below that of Paul Verhoeven, who likewise has been a successful filmmaker in his own country as well as the US but whom has significant awards from multiple countries. We don't & shouldn't include most of the European actors who have been in notable films on both sides of the Atlantic; I don't think we should treat filmmakers differently in that regard. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Include, albeit as a borderline inclusion, looking at his resume, it's safe to assume that this dude is famous in other countries outside of Germany and the United States and is successful in many other countries around the world. it looks like a dude who would be included in these types of articles. 4me689 (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- I’d be inclined to include him as a borderline inclusion, as per 4me689. Which naturally means I’d also be opposed to his image being included. TheScrubby (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Did he have anything other than his films being popular in many countries? Thousands of people have popularity in multiple countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Include. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Include. I think he's pretty well known worldwide. I certainly knew of him. Maybe not quite a household name, but still very significant. Deb (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Fashion designers (Result: case-by case basis; Miyake inclusion and Mori borderline inclusion)
Where should the inclusion bar be for fashion designers? Are Issey Miyake & Hanae Mori internationally notable enough? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- both look they have enough International nobility for me to approve for inclusion, I mean they look like they have a pretty good resume. 4me689 (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Personally fashion designers are internationally notable enough and should be included (in terms of Miyake and Mori). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- Issey Miyake, yes, very widely known internationally; Hanae Mori, no. Deb (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I would agree with Deb; review the designer on a case by case basis. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Issey Miyake, yes, very widely known internationally; Hanae Mori, no. Deb (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Collages (Result: inclusion)
Can collages be added to main year articles, recently a discussion has been opened up in the Talk:2020 page about collages an idea brought up by the user KoopaDaQuick, I also had this idea but just forgot about it until very recently. it would bring more originality to this pages and would make every main year article look unique, the idea is like the collages in the decade articles, we're a couple photos are in the info box and you can click on them to go directly to the article that picture is from. I want to see what everyone's thoughts on adding a collage are, and if yes list what pictures would be on a possible 2022 collage. 4me689 (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, giving each year a montage would be a good idea. I don't know if we want to do one as plentiful as the one I did for 2020, but maybe we could do it in a similar manner as the ones we already use for the decade articles. KoopaDaQuick (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah I'd support this big time, especially given how extremely eventful 2021 and 2022 (so far) has been. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think so. We're not here for "originality", and the collage included on 2020 is pretty meaningless and not well-designed. I can see the point of making the main year article look unique, but we'd need something much better than the existing example. This should be raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years if you want to proceed with it. Deb (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- We're probably not going to use the style of the collage that is currently on the picture on the 2020 article, we're more than likely going to use the style that is used in the decade articles. Also, @Jim Michael 2:, @TheScrubby:, and @Black Kite: what do you think about this, they're the main contributors. 4me689 (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think so. We're not here for "originality", and the collage included on 2020 is pretty meaningless and not well-designed. I can see the point of making the main year article look unique, but we'd need something much better than the existing example. This should be raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years if you want to proceed with it. Deb (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Jean-Jacques Sempé inclusion (Result: inclusion)
I'd be leaning towards borderline including French cartoonist Jean-Jacques Sempé as it appears he's had some international notability, seeing how he has worked on publications not only in his native France but also the U.S., Germany and with his obit saying he had "international acclaim". I feel like he'd be worth including here. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- I also agree with borderline inclusion, as looking at his resume, he was known for his unique drawings. 4me689 (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude due to him having little international notability. Thousands of notable people have worked in more than one country; that's not enough to justify them being on main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Include. 100 New Yorker covers as well as being well known in a number of European countries. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Include Published in at least 30 languages, and his children's book series has received several adaptations. To be honest, I was surprised that Sempé was still alive until this year. His most groundbreaking work dates to the 1950s and the 1960s, and his creative partner René Goscinny died back in 1977. Dimadick (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
2022 European derecho (Result: exclusion)
is the 2022 European derecho notable enough for inclusion, just asking????? 4me689 (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude. 12 deaths just isn't notable enough for this page, sorry. There's a bit more flexibility when it comes to terrorism/violent incidents, but we're talking about a natural disaster here. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- No it is not. Low casualty count. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hold on. Citizens of three nations were killed. That is by definition international. There is no set threshold for casualties coming from a natural disaster, is there? Should we make one? The Voivodeship King (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- We don't have a threshold in terms of number of people killed or injured, nor amount/cost of damage caused. This is internationally notable, but not significant enough. It's fairly minor in world terms. Many storms, floods, wildfires, earthquakes etc. significantly affect multiple countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hold on. Citizens of three nations were killed. That is by definition international. There is no set threshold for casualties coming from a natural disaster, is there? Should we make one? The Voivodeship King (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Milutin Šoškić (Result: exclusion)
is Milutin Šoškić notable enough for inclusion, any thoughts?????
by the way please do not give a basic response like, no International nobility 2022 in Serbia, give a good detailed response. 4me689 (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- He's not internationally notable enough to include, because team medals aren't enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- in my opinion he is a borderline inclusion because he coached other countries other than the baltics like the USA and also has an Olympic gold medal. 4me689 (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- You mean Balkan rather than Baltic. He played in Germany & coached the US team, but didn't have any significant achievements when doing so. Team medals don't grant inclusion on main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Ralph Eggleston & Kazuo Inamori (Result: Eggleston excluded and Inamori borderline inclusion)
Ralph Eggleston & Kazuo Inamori are two people that were added recently, and they both have importance inline tags who were added at the same time.
Ralph Eggleston - borderline inclusion, an American animator, art director, storyboard artist, writer, film director, and production designer at Pixar Animation Studios. who won a oscar for writing and directing a short film called For the Birds.
Kazuo Inamori - borderline inclusion, was a Japanese philanthropist, entrepreneur and the founder of Kyocera and KDDI. He was the chairman of Japan Airlines.
Inamori was elected as a member into the National Academy of Engineering in 2000 for innovation in ceramic materials and solar cell development/manufacturing, entrepreneurship of advanced technologies, and for being a role model for relating science to society.
@Jim Michael 2:, @TheScrubby:, @Black Kite:, @Wjfox2005:, and @PeaceInOurTime2021: i'm curious what you thoughts are
by the way, this unrelated, but, theres no new replies on the Collages section you guys mind going to reply into that section. 4me689 (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Never heard of these people. I'm neutral on their inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude Eggleston because his awards aren't important enough. The Oscar mentioned by 4me689 was awarded to a film, not to Eggleston.
- Undecided on Inamori. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Exclude Eggleston because of what Jim says (and let's remember that not everyone who gets Oscars is ever included) and I’ve my doubts about Inamori. He was chariman of Japan Airlines, a major company, but I don't think this is a direct ticket to be included. I tend to support his exclusion as well. _-_Alsor (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Exclude Eggleston, though count me as Neutral on Inamori. TheScrubby (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude Eggleston. He's clearly accomplished, but ibid Jim Michael's arguments, he isn't as notable as other inclusions.
- Weak include Inamori. He's not a notable name in the world directly, but his accomplishments have proved that his work has influenced the world. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
August deaths (Result: Dean excluded and majority of astronauts excluded)
Hi, please upload a photo of Charlbi Dean who died 29 August in the 2022 events - August deaths article . 197.229.1.140 (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- She doesn’t have the international notability to be included in the first place, and in any case we would be prioritising Olivia Newton-John for the entertainment figure portrait for August. TheScrubby (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with scrubby, she didn't even star in any major films or TV series. 4me689 (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Dean was not as notable as Newton-John. Keep her off InvadingInvader (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- agg, jou poes. Rhodewarrick471 (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Dean was not as notable as Newton-John. Keep her off InvadingInvader (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude all of "importance" tagged entries. We must also consider whether to add all the astronauts that exist and will exist. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Personally, on the note of astronauts, only include them if they accomplished a first (like Mae Jemison being the first black woman in space), if they've had a substantial career outside of space (like now-US Senator Mark Kelly), have done something significant for space research, or have become media stars in their own right with regard to their astronaut work. If an astronaut is the subject of a movie which attained the success of Hidden Figures (as an example), I think it's okay if we throw them in. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- A small minority of astronauts, including Neil Armstrong, are important enough for main year articles. The large majority aren't. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Charlbi Dean (Result: exclusion)
Why remove Charlbi for "not having international mobility' ? Im sure nobody knows who the hell Richard Braggs or Briggs (cartoonist) is . Well, they might know Charlbi. She's relevant. Richard was 88. Nobody cares. Rhodewarrick471 (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- because she didn't really star in any major movies, I mean, I didn't really know her until she was bought up in this very talk section.
- Raymond Briggs is notable because he was a really famous cartoonist, whos were very well-known and respected around the world. in contrast, Dean wasn't known that much around the world, she wasn't really that well-known outside her home of South Africa. 4me689 (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- We don't include domestic figures, which she clearly was. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- She has zero international notability, and she belongs in 2022 in South Africa - not the main 2022 page or 2022 deaths in the United States, which for some inexplicable reason you’ve been trying to include her in. TheScrubby (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Probably because she died in the US. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Xinjiang report (Result: inclusion)
@Jim Michael 2: let’s bring this up here instead of reverting over and over again.
I think that the approach you’re taking to Xinjiang is not helping the article, and the true magnitude the UN report isn’t fully understood. You’re comparing apples to oranges when you are bringing in the invasion of Ukraine; this event is defining of the year to the point where it’s in the lead. No event except maybe COVID reaches that level. Astronomy can’t be compared to Ukraine but yet it’s on this list and I support its inclusion.
Additionally, in edit summaries, you did claim something along the lines of “crimes against humanity happen all the time”. When does the UN of all agencies make this sort of statement in such a public manner against one of the most powerful countries in the world? Not to mention that the effect of this report are wide-reaching. Countries around the world are being asked by the UN to keep Uyghur deportees away from China. H&M pulled out of Xinjiang even before the paper was released. World leaders of both China and are on this like crazy. The media treats this with the same level of importance as Gorbachev’s death. Heck, this even made the current events tab on the Main Page. And you’re saying that the genocide in Xinjiang (which even Wikipedia for all its neutrality acknowledges it as a genocide) doesn’t matter enough for the article 2022? InvadingInvader (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I support inclusion, this is one of the world's biggest countries were talking about. 4me689 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is a report that's critical of a domestic situation in one country. The UN & other supranational orgs often make criticisms of various countries. Many countries have perpetrated and/or been accused of crimes against humanity. The vast majority of these instances aren't mentioned on main year articles & I don't see why this one should be. Unless some major international consequences (such as sanctions, military action or travel bans) result from it, it's domestic. So far, the only response to the report is a few countries agreeing with it & China rejecting it. Various complications in regard to refugee situations exist in many countries. The size &/or power of the country doesn't make this of major international importance. The media publicise various people, places, events & things because it gains them views/sales. Using media coverage as a measure, you'd have to conclude that many members of the Kardashian-Jenner family are among the most important people in the world. Being on the Current events portal &/or ITN doesn't grant a place on main year articles; the inclusion criteria for each are very different. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- The framing of a U.N. accusing one of its P5 of crimes against humanity as
domestic
makes little sense on its face, especially when the Secretary General of the United Nations is anything but a domestic official. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)- It's supranational criticism of a domestic policy, which is commonplace. It's not accompanied by any action. The only reason being given for including this but not the large majority of similar reports, speeches, criticism etc. in main year articles is that China is a large, powerful country. That seems to be implying that if the country the UN were accusing of human rights abuses & crimes against humanity were for example Eritrea, Haiti or Myanmar, we'd be agreed that we wouldn't include it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- The framing of a U.N. accusing one of its P5 of crimes against humanity as
- This is a report that's critical of a domestic situation in one country. The UN & other supranational orgs often make criticisms of various countries. Many countries have perpetrated and/or been accused of crimes against humanity. The vast majority of these instances aren't mentioned on main year articles & I don't see why this one should be. Unless some major international consequences (such as sanctions, military action or travel bans) result from it, it's domestic. So far, the only response to the report is a few countries agreeing with it & China rejecting it. Various complications in regard to refugee situations exist in many countries. The size &/or power of the country doesn't make this of major international importance. The media publicise various people, places, events & things because it gains them views/sales. Using media coverage as a measure, you'd have to conclude that many members of the Kardashian-Jenner family are among the most important people in the world. Being on the Current events portal &/or ITN doesn't grant a place on main year articles; the inclusion criteria for each are very different. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I do not believe that the report being published is an international event that is on-topic for this article. The single biggest repercussion you can point to is "H&M pulling out", which, as you say, happened before the release of the paper, again proving the release of the paper is not itself a turning point. We can wait and see if there are more significant responses on an international level; we don't have to rush to publish anything!
- No-one is saying 'the genocide in Xinjiang doesn't matter' and it's unhelpful to use straw-man arguments like that.
- JeffUK (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose inclusion. The report presents only potential issues, with the wording being careful to only indicate that the the presented issues are a possibility, and not a direct allegation. Given the tone, it seems that notability requirements are not met. Carter00000 (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's necessary to include. The media and organizations in support of the Uyghurs do say that this report had months of unexpected delays and this was widely anticipated. (see WashPost, Amnesty International, Reuters, the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, BBC News, an article from CNN about the report before its release, and ABC News). International coverage this wide of an organization as influential as the UN accusing a country as large as China should be mentioned, and any comparison to Ukraine would be comparing apples to oranges; not every event of the year has to define the world as widely as the invasion of Ukraine.
I'm open to changing how its written, but the UN coming out with allegations and reports of this has very large ramifications for the future. The UN in itself is mired in controversy and editors may have different opinions on if the UN is effective, but its position in global affairs and its power over countries as the closest organization to international law and policing renders it as the most powerful organization in the world. If the world government says that you're possibly committing crimes against humanity after a thorough investigation and 48-page report is released, your reputation is screwed pretty badly, even for a country as large and as powerful as China.
The report additionally calls for more brands and businesses to boycott Xinjiang (see Al Jazeera), and the consequences for increased attention to China's actions in Xinjiang have already damned the country to half of the developed world. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)- Most of the discussion on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) UN report on Uyghur genocide can be translated over here as well. A large majority of editors there support some sort of inclusion of the report on Main Page, and while not everything on Main Page should be here, something with this amount of international coverage and notability should. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- ...the UN coming out with allegations .... possibly committing crimes against humanity ... calls for more brands and businesses to boycott ... How can that be worthy of a place on a main year article? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- With sole regard to inclusion on this list, what matters more than the content of the report itself is how much the world cares about it and what the world does about it. By focusing more so on the content less than the impact, you downplay the ramifications. I'm personally against including Depp v. Heard here in its present form, but if for some reason it became crucial for international relations (for some reason, let's not get into the nitty gritty of the scenario), it should the here.
- I'm not sure if you recognize that the official position of the world government, which the UN is the closest thing we have to a world government despite all its controversies, is that there is evidence for probable crimes against humanity (and alluded but not verbatim-mentioned genocide) happening in Xinjiang. The Uyghur situation is shifting foreign relations; western governments, most notably the United States, have acted legislatively or openly in protest against the Chinese government in Xinjiang. Now, the world in general recognizes that crimes against humanity are likely happening in Xinjiang, which is a first for a long-running, ongoing, and recent (5 years of substantial media coverage or less) event which can really only be superseded by some domestic affairs (George Floyd and Jan 6 in the US to be specific), Ukraine, COVID and the following economic events like inflation, and Afghanistan.
- Additionally, focusing now on Wikipedia itself, consensus is clear, as established by Polyamorph, that this report is worthy of being included in the current events page (see this discussion). The Current Events project and 2022 are two different things, though notable international news that project-wide and Wiki-wide consensus thinks should be on Current Events, especially something like the world reacting to Xinjiang, absolutely should be listed here as well.
- InvadingInvader (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's nothing like the world reacting. The vast majority of people have no interest in the Uyghurs, how the Chinese gov treats them, nor what the UN says about it. It's not a popular topic of conversation in factories, shops, offices, pubs, living rooms, parties etc. Despite this being reported in many countries & being on WP's main page, its peak daily views were less than 14,000. A supranational org has criticised China for it, and another supranational org as well as two countries have agreed with the report. China has rejected it & nothing has changed. If this results in China becoming a world outcast like N Korea is, then it'll be important enough for this article. As things stand, it's mere criticism. That's something the UN has given many times, including for human rights abuses, crimes against humanity etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Could you provide sources for other recent times when the UN HCR has stated crimes against humanity are possibly being committed a world government? InvadingInvader (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I assume you mean national gov rather than world, because the Chinese gov is being accused of perpetrating abuses domestically. Another case this year is Myanmar: 'Appalling' violations demand 'unified and resolute international response' No-one added that to this article, nor indicated they thought it should be included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Then why did the ITN group overwhelmingly agree that the Chinese report belongs on the Main Page? Between this talk page thread as well as the ITN candidate thread, only you and Carter (who btw is actually on WP:AE for disrupting community consensus) have valiantly opposed this being included. Most people only mentioned oppose once and never commented again, or switched from Oppose to comment/neutral or support, and a majority of the opposition only didn't think it was worth posting because the article wasn't ready at the time (which has been fixed)?
What I think you're doing is looking at events solely based on internal context and not what the world cares about. It's a balancing act, but the world has shown me (as well as a lot of other people through media coverage and community consensus) is that people care about this. Is there another instance of the UN OHR making this sort of allegation within the past 2 years? InvadingInvader (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)- The ITN criteria are very different to those of main year articles. Inclusion on one doesn't grant inclusion on the other. Likewise with exclusion. Some other editors agree with me in this discussion, and in edit summaries.
- Like I said, the vast majority of the world doesn't care about any aspect of this. The large majority of countries haven't made statements about it. Look at how low the report's page views are, despite being on the main page. If you try to start a conversation about it with your colleagues or in a social gathering, you'll be met with awkward silence, then someone will quickly change the conversation.
- You asked for another recent UN criticism of another country for serious human rights abuses, so I linked a UN ref from earlier this year about Myanmar. Do you think that should be included in this article? If not, why include their criticism of China, but not of Myanmar? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Then why did the ITN group overwhelmingly agree that the Chinese report belongs on the Main Page? Between this talk page thread as well as the ITN candidate thread, only you and Carter (who btw is actually on WP:AE for disrupting community consensus) have valiantly opposed this being included. Most people only mentioned oppose once and never commented again, or switched from Oppose to comment/neutral or support, and a majority of the opposition only didn't think it was worth posting because the article wasn't ready at the time (which has been fixed)?
- I assume you mean national gov rather than world, because the Chinese gov is being accused of perpetrating abuses domestically. Another case this year is Myanmar: 'Appalling' violations demand 'unified and resolute international response' No-one added that to this article, nor indicated they thought it should be included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- yeah there seems to be a huge argument here, not everyone who is editing these Pages has put their Mark here yet.
- curious on what @TheScrubby:, @Black Kite:, @Wjfox2005:, @PeaceInOurTime2021:, @The Voivodeship King:, @TDKR Chicago 101:, @Deb:, and @Alsoriano97: thinks about this
- this needs to have a consensus. 4me689 (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Could you provide sources for other recent times when the UN HCR has stated crimes against humanity are possibly being committed a world government? InvadingInvader (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's nothing like the world reacting. The vast majority of people have no interest in the Uyghurs, how the Chinese gov treats them, nor what the UN says about it. It's not a popular topic of conversation in factories, shops, offices, pubs, living rooms, parties etc. Despite this being reported in many countries & being on WP's main page, its peak daily views were less than 14,000. A supranational org has criticised China for it, and another supranational org as well as two countries have agreed with the report. China has rejected it & nothing has changed. If this results in China becoming a world outcast like N Korea is, then it'll be important enough for this article. As things stand, it's mere criticism. That's something the UN has given many times, including for human rights abuses, crimes against humanity etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's necessary to include. The media and organizations in support of the Uyghurs do say that this report had months of unexpected delays and this was widely anticipated. (see WashPost, Amnesty International, Reuters, the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, BBC News, an article from CNN about the report before its release, and ABC News). International coverage this wide of an organization as influential as the UN accusing a country as large as China should be mentioned, and any comparison to Ukraine would be comparing apples to oranges; not every event of the year has to define the world as widely as the invasion of Ukraine.
- Yeah I would say Exclude as per Jim Michael, and I don’t really have too much to add beyond what Jim’s already said. We can always revisit this as well, if this UN report leads to substantial consequences which directly affect the Xinjiang issue. TheScrubby (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @4me689: - very chuffed to have been thought of. Personally, I support inclusion. The main argument against this is that such reports regarding the Myanma (this is the demonym, not a spelling error) Government and the Rohingya people were not included. It is worth noting that merely because the Rohingya genocide has not been includes does not mean that it isn't notable. Were we resting on our laurels? In the Xinjiang camps, at least 1,000,000 have been detained, including some Kazakhs and Kyrgyz peoples who are also being sinicised by the Chinese government as they are also Muslim (according to the page). Another argument is that the Uyghur genocide is "not a popular topic of conversation", but earlier it was noted that by looking at popularity (or to be verbatim, views) would indicate that the Kardashians and Jenners are some of the most important people in the world, which is not reliable in terms of notability. But genocide is not a popular topic of conversation as it involves callous death. Nobody talks about it because it is considered polite in the majority of social circles to keep conversation "light" (vapid and meaningless). I conceded on Bill Russell last month, but I think this is an even stronger argument than that. I accept but disagree with the opinion that this genocide could not be notable. The only issue is that genocide occurs over time. We had an issue with too many entries regarding the Ukrainian Invasion and we would have the same issue here is documenting every action. These reports are the simplest and most notable way to note these events. By the way, I probably won't see your rebuttal for this until at least 08:00 Thursday, 08/09/22. Sincerely, The Voivodeship King (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- The UN's recent criticism of Myanmar's gov includes accusations of various frequent serious human rights abuses which aren't limited to the Rohingya. What reason is there to exclude that, but include the accusations the UN made against China's gov? No-one's claiming that these things aren't notable; the issue is that they're not internationally notable enough for a main year article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- What people think is more important than what actually is. The morals are debatable, but if people care about something, they talk about it. The media is a reflection of this; I would not have sponsored the inclusion of Depp v. Heard in 2022 in the US based solely on what was happening inside the courtroom, but because people care about both the people and the impact it has over future trials like it, I think it belongs. Same with Xinjiang. The UN has criticized Myanmar, but people don't really care about Myanmar for some reason, though when the UN criticizes Xinjiang, we care about it. We view this as the capstone (so far) of the allegations of what's going on in Xinjiang, and this is far more of an international event than Depp v. Heard. Additionally consider how the world has awaited this report; multiple sources describe the report as long awaited or using similar terminology, by many groups.(see The Economist, The NY Times on the Uyghur diaspora, the Guardian, Canada's Global News, CNN (even prior to the report's release), the Christian Science Monitor, and the Taipei Times). InvadingInvader (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Depp v. Heard isn't international. The great interest in it by the media & public is due to both parties having long been famous. Even if that case sets precedents that are relevant for future cases, it's domestic - so it doesn't belong on this article.
- Far more people are interested in China than Myanmar because China is the world's most populous, second-most powerful & third-largest country. Myanmar is one of the least developed countries, whose only significant effect on the world is its refugees. However, the vast majority of people also have no interest in the Uyghurs; the low page views of the report, despite it being covered extensively by the media & on our main page, prove that. They & the UN report about them aren't a common topic of conversation. Try starting a conversation about the Uyghurs & it's unlikely that anyone will know who you're talking about & even less likely that they'll be interested. If you're saying that we should include the UN harshly criticising a national gov for human rights abuses that possibly amount to crimes against humanity on main year articles, we should include their statements on Myanmar as well as China. If you agree with me that such criticism without significant international action as a result isn't of significant international notability, we should exclude both statements. It makes no sense to include one but not the other; the UN's criticism about both governments include some of the same type of accusations. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Read my argument again; I brought up Depp v. Heard with regard to 2022 in the US, not listing it here on the internationally-focused 2022. We agree on not including Depp v. Heard here, but since US media cared about it, the trial belongs there and is notable enough. I'm comparing a domestic event and a domestic media reaction to a domestic 2022 list.
- I strongly disagree with the claim that people show little to no interest in Uyghurs; multiple sources have covered this actively. Just look at the media as of recent, and all the sources I've linked in my previous replies. Google Scholar shows over 1600 articles on Xinjiang Camps this year alone. Google Trends shows a spike around the beginning of September for Xinjiang queries. In San Francisco (where I am as of writing), arguably the most international city in the United States save for New York and DC, we all know that this exists, but the same way I don't bring up Palestine and Israel with friends who hail from that region, or the Armenian genocide with my Turkish friends, I don't bring it up because it's a sensitive topic. Even if we wouldn't talk about it openly, we'd still search for it, explaining the spike in Google searches.
- Again, you're treating all UN reports equally, when reality shows consistently that not all animals are created equally. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Some media sources are interested in the Uyghurs, but the vast majority of people aren't. If 80m people are interested, that means 1% of the population are. The spikes you mention are due to the recent UN report. They're short-lived & are tiny in comparison to those relating to many other things that've happened this year. The vast majority of people who've read the main page during this week haven't ever clicked on its link to this report; its low page views prove that. Do you merely avoid mentioning the Uyghurs to your Chinese friends because it'd likely be a sensitive topic for them? Or do you not mention the subject to any of your friends, because you know it's highly unlikely that they'll be interested? The UN's statements this year on Myanmar & China are similar in many ways. If you want to exclude Myanmar, what are your reasons for that? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- "Some media sources"–nearly every reliable source in the world which covers international news have addressed the Uyghur genocide at some point, and most of them have covered the recent report.
- 80 million people is still a lot of people.
- And I don't deny that the UN report created more recent notability for the Uyghur Genocide. However, it's not just the report's we have to take into account, but also the articles Xinjiang internment camps, Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, and to a lesser extent, Xinjiang. The middle two of those are hovering around 100,000 views each in the past few months, and all five articles' views combined (about 300K views) would be around 5/6 that of Microsoft and North Korea, double the past 30 day views for The Walt Disney Company, Kamala Harris, COVID-19, and the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, triple that of the 2022 Saskatchewan stabbings and the Chinese Communist Party, and ten times that of the 2022 Luding earthquake. The article Crimes against humanity also received a spike in readings, which when factoring those views in,
- BTW, I'm Chinese myself. I'm personally not comfortable talking about Xinjiang and the genocide there outside of online discussions like this. Extremist America gets "a little" crazy sometimes ;)
- On a personal level, I would be okay with including Myanmar actually. The world, however, has paid more attention to Xinjiang, but if Myanmar is proposed on the talk page, I'd support it with Myanmar on this list because of the UN's role and its severity. When deciding between including one or the other, though, because of more coverage, media or otherwise, I'd include Xinjiang over Myanmar. If for some reason the UN released an exorbitant amount of crimes against humanity reports this year, then I think we might need to cut down on their inclusion here, but given the circumstances, unless the UN revealed that a massive genocide of some group people which rivals that of not only our worst genocides but even the loss of life under Mao Zedong, this is the most damning report for any country yet issued by an organization as internationally influential and powerful as the UN. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Some media sources are interested in the Uyghurs, but the vast majority of people aren't. If 80m people are interested, that means 1% of the population are. The spikes you mention are due to the recent UN report. They're short-lived & are tiny in comparison to those relating to many other things that've happened this year. The vast majority of people who've read the main page during this week haven't ever clicked on its link to this report; its low page views prove that. Do you merely avoid mentioning the Uyghurs to your Chinese friends because it'd likely be a sensitive topic for them? Or do you not mention the subject to any of your friends, because you know it's highly unlikely that they'll be interested? The UN's statements this year on Myanmar & China are similar in many ways. If you want to exclude Myanmar, what are your reasons for that? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- What people think is more important than what actually is. The morals are debatable, but if people care about something, they talk about it. The media is a reflection of this; I would not have sponsored the inclusion of Depp v. Heard in 2022 in the US based solely on what was happening inside the courtroom, but because people care about both the people and the impact it has over future trials like it, I think it belongs. Same with Xinjiang. The UN has criticized Myanmar, but people don't really care about Myanmar for some reason, though when the UN criticizes Xinjiang, we care about it. We view this as the capstone (so far) of the allegations of what's going on in Xinjiang, and this is far more of an international event than Depp v. Heard. Additionally consider how the world has awaited this report; multiple sources describe the report as long awaited or using similar terminology, by many groups.(see The Economist, The NY Times on the Uyghur diaspora, the Guardian, Canada's Global News, CNN (even prior to the report's release), the Christian Science Monitor, and the Taipei Times). InvadingInvader (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- The UN's recent criticism of Myanmar's gov includes accusations of various frequent serious human rights abuses which aren't limited to the Rohingya. What reason is there to exclude that, but include the accusations the UN made against China's gov? No-one's claiming that these things aren't notable; the issue is that they're not internationally notable enough for a main year article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @4me689: - very chuffed to have been thought of. Personally, I support inclusion. The main argument against this is that such reports regarding the Myanma (this is the demonym, not a spelling error) Government and the Rohingya people were not included. It is worth noting that merely because the Rohingya genocide has not been includes does not mean that it isn't notable. Were we resting on our laurels? In the Xinjiang camps, at least 1,000,000 have been detained, including some Kazakhs and Kyrgyz peoples who are also being sinicised by the Chinese government as they are also Muslim (according to the page). Another argument is that the Uyghur genocide is "not a popular topic of conversation", but earlier it was noted that by looking at popularity (or to be verbatim, views) would indicate that the Kardashians and Jenners are some of the most important people in the world, which is not reliable in terms of notability. But genocide is not a popular topic of conversation as it involves callous death. Nobody talks about it because it is considered polite in the majority of social circles to keep conversation "light" (vapid and meaningless). I conceded on Bill Russell last month, but I think this is an even stronger argument than that. I accept but disagree with the opinion that this genocide could not be notable. The only issue is that genocide occurs over time. We had an issue with too many entries regarding the Ukrainian Invasion and we would have the same issue here is documenting every action. These reports are the simplest and most notable way to note these events. By the way, I probably won't see your rebuttal for this until at least 08:00 Thursday, 08/09/22. Sincerely, The Voivodeship King (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support inclusion. The arguments in support of inclusion note widespread coverage by both academic sources and news media of the Uyghur genocide, as well as the importance of this event in the scheme of global affairs. The fact of the matter is that this is a major U.N. report that has been awaited for four years and is extremely significant in the U.N. treatment of a P5 UNSC member. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- The arguments against include there being no action or consequences in response to the report, which the supporters of inclusion are ignoring. Are you in favour of including this year's UN accusations against Myanmar, or only those against China? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Jim Michael 2 The focus of the discussion is Xinjiang, not Myanmar. WP:OTHERSTUFF is a bad argument to make unless we're making references to good or featured articles, and is best avoided not just in deletion discussions but most other discussions. Consider also reading about the Fallacy of relative privation. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- The arguments against include there being no action or consequences in response to the report, which the supporters of inclusion are ignoring. Are you in favour of including this year's UN accusations against Myanmar, or only those against China? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Re-elections (Result: case-by-case basis, but exclude if without significance)
Some editors, including me, think that re-elections shouldn't usually be included in main year articles because they don't involve a change of government & hence are usually of little or no international significance. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I removed one, and it was reverted because other re-elections are on the article, so removed all of them to resolve the issue raised, before seeing this discussion. I definitely don't think re-elections are relevant. I'm actually not sure that changes of government are necessarily important enough to go on here either; take a country like the UK where power changes hands in a stable and normal way between one or two political parties every few years, I don't think it's actually a significant event in the scope of the year as a whole. Change of the type of government, e.g. 'First democratic elections' or an 'ousting' or 'coup' maybe. This is relevant as we're about to change the prime minister (not the governing party) and even though that does have effects on an international stage; I don't think that it's necessarily important enough for the main year article. JeffUK (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think it depends on a case by case basis. I'm usually in favor of a larger and more influential country having their re-elections counted, or if a movement faces a significant defeat or setback. A good example would be Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide re-election where only the US state of Minnesota and Washington DC voting against Reagan in the electoral college, or Macron vs. Le Pen where the right-wing movement was defeated for the second time in a row. But if it's a country as small or as influential on the world stage as Tuvalu or Mali re-electing their president, I would support Jim Michael here and keep it off. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- So in other words, you would support including re-elections if we say, limit them to G20 nations? TheScrubby (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not exactly. It all depends on the election itself. Does it show that a significant movement was defeated or maybe even more popularly supported than before? Was it one most notable reelections in the nations' own history? I think it's ultimately a case by case basis where it all depends on the impact of the election. In general, though, if it's Obama v. Romney for instance, or when Merkel was reelected as chancellor for the second time, keep it off.
- I bring up Macron vs. Le Pen Round 2 because even though Le Pen lost, she and her movement gained a lot more of a foothold as observed by independent analysts and Le Pen herself (see PBS and BBC) I also brought up Reagan in 1984 because aside from Minnesota and DC, the entire country voted Republican on the electoral college level. Some fictitious elections which should be included would be if Gavin Newsom defeated Ron DeSantis for presidential re-election by a 48 point margin in the popular vote, a J6 style event happens in Russia the day after Putin is re-elected, or any of the instances Deb mentioned in her comment. InvadingInvader (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- So in other words, you would support including re-elections if we say, limit them to G20 nations? TheScrubby (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I haven't formed an opinion on this yet, the main person that updates these things on the year articles his name is RookieInTheWiki. @RookieInTheWiki:, what's your opinion on this. 4me689 (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would agree that there's not much point in including them in countries that aren't major powers where there's no change of government. Exceptions might be where the re-election comes as a big surprise - for example, if the previous President of the United States had been re-elected - or where there is suspicion of corrupt practices, resulting in political unrest. Deb (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Don L. Lind (Result: exclusion)
is Don L. Lind notable enough for inclusion, just asking????? 4me689 (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would support his inclusion if no one else of better notability died within the surrounding days. He is a very accomplished astronaut. His article is ready to be even posted on WP:ITN if you want to go ahead and do that as well. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- ITN has very different inclusion criteria. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately we've got into the habit of including every astronaut, and I strongly feel it's time we stopped, unless they are particularly important for something else. In this case, I see no particular significance and I would oppose his inclusion. Deb (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, like most astronauts he has no international notability, so should be excluded. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
John Landy (Result: exclusion)
Is John Landy notable enough for inclusion. He's been added over and over again. In my opinion, exclude, because he's a very local figure. 4me689 (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude due to insufficient international notability. His athletics career wasn't important enough & his political career was local. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Well, he wasn't even a politician - he was made Governor of Victoria (my home state), but that's a ceremonial role that he was appointed to in recognition of his athletic achievements. At most he ought to be maybe considered a borderline inclusion, but only on the basis of world records he achieved in his athletic career. Otherwise, I've got no issue with his exclusion. TheScrubby (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude ibid Jim Michael's reasoning InvadingInvader (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Top Thrill Dragster closing? (Result: exclusion)
I'm not sure whether to include its closing. While it is an American roller coaster, it is (or should I say was) the #2 world record holder in terms of height and #3 in terms of speed. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- yes the coaster is big, and yes the park it's in Cedar Point, is one of the biggest amusement parks in the world, with Millions visiting it per year. however the closing of Dragster is pretty much domestic. and I would rather Exclude it.
- with that being said, world record-breaking coaster openings are notable in my opinion, you got to represent all aspects of media when it comes to these articles including amusement parks, we tried to bring the variety from every sorts of stuff, from gaming to Sports and even amusement parks. and I would argue the opening of Top Thrill Dragster in 2003 is notable in itself, as it was the first full circuit 400-foot coaster and in my opinion it should go for every time a coaster surpasses the height or speed record, like the opening of Kingda Ka in 2005 or the opening of Formula Rossa in 2010.
- maybe someone can make 2022 in amusement parks perhaps, just saying. 4me689 (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Kind of busy with other things both on Wikipedia and off Wikipedia, but when I get a spare moment, I'm wiling to help make that list. I might go retroactively add the Dragster to 2003 if it's not already there.InvadingInvader (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Opening & closing of amusement parks & anything within them are domestic & are nowhere near important enough to include on main year articles, even if they break records. Main year articles don't include people, groups, places, things etc. on the basis of them being the largest, smallest, tallest, shortest, heaviest, lightest, fastest, richest, most popular, longest running, most publicised etc. - regardless of location or field. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a list dedicated to theme parks designate this? InvadingInvader (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Articles such as List of amusement parks & List of amusement parks in the Americas don't include any info about them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a list dedicated to theme parks designate this? InvadingInvader (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Coronation of Charles III and Camilla (Result: removed)
This should not be listed in the 2022 article, it is not yet scheduled, and it could be as late as 2024 before it happens. Suggest it is removed until such time as a date is announced. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Removed Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Peter Straub (Result: exclusion)
Is he internationally notable enough? How important are his awards? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include, albeit as a borderline inclusion, looking at his resume, he was well known writer 4me689 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would lean towards exclusion, though I’m closer to neutral than anything. But I don’t think he had the international notability for inclusion here. TheScrubby (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include. Fairly renowned author and it's fitting to include an author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.180.226 (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include! Ingrid997 (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- To those simply saying to include, none have made a sufficient argument in response to Jim’s question asking how he’s internationally notable enough. Straub was hardly a household name and his awards were domestic. TheScrubby (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- I have no stake in it; so my observations will be just that observations.
- The Genre of Horror Story Writing is very Niche. So much so; that many of the awards that Straub won for example; are mostly American/British based; because well the status of Horror Story Writing is so new.
- Would Straub be notable for inclusion then ?
- Well Maybe ? 65.78.186.95 (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- To those simply saying to include, none have made a sufficient argument in response to Jim’s question asking how he’s internationally notable enough. Straub was hardly a household name and his awards were domestic. TheScrubby (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include. He won seventeen minor awards in five different countries. Ingrid997 (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Why would minor awards be relevant? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- My opinion similar to TheScrubby; I'm not familiar with his work, and most non-bookworms have likely not read it. I think his inclusion all depends on the substance and quantity of awards; 17 smaller ones across five countries is certainly impressive, and the World Fantasy Award does seem influential (it's also a GA here), but I don't think it's a household name nor the subject of substantive media coverage. Unlike the Pulitzer Prize or the Emmys, I don't get CNN alerts about the World Fantasy Awards. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Elizabeth II (Result: photo included as soon as space was made available)
There's an edit war over whether to use the larger photo, the smaller one, or neither. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- For consistency, all thumbnails in the Deaths section should be kept the same width, i.e. 100px. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Beyond belief that Alsoriano97 believes there shouldn't be any pic, when the Queen is arguably the most notable death of the entire year so far, and possibly the last 10-20+ years. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think Alsoriano made it perfectly clear in his last edit summary that there simply isn't the space for her image yet - which I agree with. I don't think anyone here's seriously arguing that Elizabeth shouldn't get a photo here ever. We can afford to wait until more space is made available, there's no need to rush-include an image before there's even space for it. TheScrubby (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Wjfox. The only deaths that remotely could be considered bigger within the past 20 or even possibly the next 5 years than Her Majesty are Gorbachev, Shinzo, and Michael Jackson, and Trump or Putin if they died in the next 5 years. I’d even go as far to suggest a photo from her funeral be featured in the montage at the top of the page. I’d support using the same size for photos. InvadingInvader (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I actually believe that for now, no image of Elizabeth should be used. Just until there's enough space - after which she 100% ought to be prioritised first and foremost. TheScrubby (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I made a good cropped photo that will fit. 4me689 (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Even then, with Peter Straub a candidate for exclusion, I’d be surprised if even a heavily cropped photo would still fit at this time. TheScrubby (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I made a good cropped photo that will fit. 4me689 (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Wjfox2005 and InvadingInvader, I am really amazed. Either I'm not explaining myself well, or you don't understand how this works. Photos will be added as long as there is enough space to include them. Whether it is the Queen of England, the Pope or Putin. It is even insulting that you think that my last editions are because I question the notability of Queen Elizabeth II. You should have read the explanation of my last edit first. The croop made by 4me689 finally allows a photo of Elizabeth II to be included, and if there are no changes to the list of deceased in September, it's going to stay (even if she's not my favorite). I insist: no space, no photo. Period. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see a space issue with the current image, honestly living with a minor formatting concern is better than leaving the image off at this stage. JeffUK (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Now there is no problem. But the format is the format, and we are not going to ignore it because we can't stand a few days without posting a photo. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- There's now plenty of space for either of version of either photo, yet the edit war over which we should use continues. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Why not we just include both? Maybe even scale all portraits down to 95 or 90px if space really is a concern? InvadingInvader (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- There's now plenty of space for either of version of either photo, yet the edit war over which we should use continues. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Lead (Result: inclusion)
Should the deaths of Shinzo Abe, Mikhail Gorbachev & Elizabeth II be in the lead? I think they should, because although heads of state/gov die every year, these three are particularly notable. Their deaths are among the most significant events of this year, and decade. Most main year articles having insufficient leads doesn't mean that this one should. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include. I agree completely. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include But if we starting to flesh it out with useful information, I think we should consider dropping "The United Nations declared 2022 as the International Year of Artisanal Fisheries and Aquaculture,[1] International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development,[2] International Year of Sustainable Mountain Development,[3] and the International Year of Glass.[4]" this is all trivia and undue weight in the lead. The UN just seem to pick these names out of a hat every year. JeffUK (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include, and I fully back JeffUK's opinion. The UN's actions are only really important if an action affects global affairs or does something as fabulous as making pigs fly. 2022 is the year of the historical death in a way. InvadingInvader (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that Year of [ ] things shouldn't be included, no matter who designates them, unless something very important happens as a result. If it were the Year of Oncology & that resulted in a large increase in resources being dedicated to cancer research which led to a cure being found, that'd be worth including. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would also sponsor Jim's standard being implemented across all year articles, not just 2022. Unless we're dealing with year XXXX and the only notable event at all is Mr. Exampleton reaching the Billboard Hot 100, leave this stuff out. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include Jim Michael's idea, and I fully back JeffUK's opinion on removing the UN declared headers 4me689 (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that Year of [ ] things shouldn't be included, no matter who designates them, unless something very important happens as a result. If it were the Year of Oncology & that resulted in a large increase in resources being dedicated to cancer research which led to a cure being found, that'd be worth including. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include Gorbachev and Elizabeth II were influential global figureheads and Abe's assassination was not only covered heavily in the news, but it was in fact a rare event. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- It is definitely appropriate to include the deaths of significant world leaders, particularly incumbents. I think including entertainers is a little bit of a hard sell for me and I think it may cause unnecessary jockeying for fans of an entertainer to try to get their person mentioned in the introduction if we have it become a standard. PaulRKil (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
2 or 3 pictures (Result: 2)
I've been trying to use the crop tool to get at least three pictures on the month of August, and MrMimikyu1998, thinks I shouldn't crop it and use the original, which I really want three because I don't really want 2 per month because it just be lame. I came here to stop a protential editing war and see what the consensus here on this subject. 4me689 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Tbh, I think two is better so that you can see their faces. I mean sure I have a 20/20 vision and I can see Miyake’s face in this image but if it were to be cropped more, you can hardly recognize it from someone who has a desktop computer.
- Kyu (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. Two pictures is more than good. Better a few photos that look good than many small ones that are not worthwhile. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Alain Tanner (Result: exclusion)
is Alain Tanner notable enough for inclusion, just asking. 4me689 (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude he's unknown both in regards to international film and most common folks. InvadingInvader (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include. He's super well known in Wales, though I never understood why. Redcoat1945 (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Where's the evidence of that being true? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Collage images
I want feedback on the Collages images before I make a image Collage a thing I already did for 2019, a image Collage will be added when the queen's funeral happens, I want 8 at a minimum, so what 8 event should get a image. 4me689 (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- The 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai eruption and tsunami should be removed. Its low death toll means it's not important enough. The June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake - which is also present - is a far more significant natural disaster & should stay to represent natural disasters. I think we should include the 2022 Peshawar mosque attack because it's the worst VNSA attack that's listed in this article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Jim Michael 2:, there's no picture of the 2022 Peshawar mosque attack on Wikipedia. 4me689 (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- May I suggest the 2022 abortion protests? Even though this may be a bit too domestic to the US, ever since the SCOTUS decided to overturn Roe v. Wade, there have been protests not only across the US but also across the world (see linked article for refs). We could potentially also include an entry in June saying something along the lines of "The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that its constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion, inciting protests both across the country and the world." InvadingInvader (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Those protests shouldn't be in this article at all. They didn't have any effect, and the protests outside the US were small. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protection on this talk page ASAP (Result: not done)
We need to semi protect this talk page until the end of the year, there has been three separate people using sock puppets to disrupt and waste others time. the first sock puppeteer is the what if 2020 person, which is a person who has abused multiple IPs to ask useless and stupid questions like "what if 2020 came to your house" & "what if 2020 was a person" and use this talk page to ask trivial and very local questions. next there's Counting Stars 500, who's used multiple accounts with easily made names like Emily Phillipson and Thomas Constable, he has demonstrated an obsession with Gilbert Gottfried and Canadian politics, and abused multiple accounts to get a consensus to include Gottfried as well as politicians like Jack Layton. and finally just today we have found another sock puppeteer in the form of Niko the Biko who is previously blocked in 2020 for harassment, Who ban evaded and abused multiple accounts like Ingrid997 & Redcoat1945, to demonstrate a obsession with Marsha Hunt, and used said multiple accounts to try to make a consensus to include her. you need to semi protect this talk page ASAP, we will not let this page go through more sock puppeteers, the only way to stop this is if we semi protected this talk page. 4me689 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with semi-protecting this talk page again, for four months at least. 146 is now blocked for bad edits, but appears to also be a sock of CountingStars or Niko. I'm suspicious of Golden Matrix, whose focus, way of writing etc. appear to be similar to those of CountingStars500. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- There's not really enough IP activity to justify it, to be honest. And the last two socks were both autoconfirmed so semi-protecting wouldn't have helped anyway. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Should Saul Kripke be included? (Result: borderline inclusion)
I would argue that he should. He seems to be notable in the field of Philosophy and has received international awards/memberships for his work. For example, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Schock_Prizes which are described as the equilvalent of the Nobel Prizes. 65.78.186.95 (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include, albeit as a borderline inclusion, looking at his resume he was a big influence in math culture, his International nobility is equivalent to Yi-Fu Tuan or Richard Taruskin , this guy would probably look like a guy that will be put in these pages. 4me689 (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
2022 collage candidate images and topic suggestions (Result: options A, B1, C3, D, F, G, I, K)
Give your opinion on what topics should be included in the collage and what should be left out. On some subjects feel free to add in subject to the image gallery the minimum is 8. 4me689 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
-
option A June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake
-
option B1 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
-
option B2 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
-
option C1 Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II
-
option C2 Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II
-
option C3 Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II
-
option D 2022 Winter Olympics
-
option E COVID-19 vaccine
-
option F Assassination of Shinzo Abe
-
option G 2022 Sri Lankan protests
-
option I 2022 Kazakh unrest
-
option j 2022 abortion protests
-
option k 2022 monkeypox outbreakoption k 2022 monkeypox outbreak
A, B1, C3, D, F, G, I, k of course the Russian invasion Ukraine and the death of Queen Elizabeth should get a image on the collage. the protest in Sri Lankan led to big changes over there, the assassination of sensuality was a big one in Asia, the Olympics has the biggest sporting event every year. 4me689 (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Prominently include at least one depicting the Russian invasion of Ukraine, because it's by far the world's biggest event of the year. Exclude the Tonga eruption & abortion protests because they're nowhere near important enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
A, B2, C2, D, F, G, I. I realise that's only 7. I don't think H is notable enough (considering we've had an earthquake that killed 1000, flooding in Pakistan that killed more, and a heatwave that killed 12000 in Europe this year), J is domestic, and the COVID-19 vaccine is really a 2021 story. I suspect we'll get a better image for C after today as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Black Kite and Jim Michael 2, what about the monkeypox outbreak, is that a good idea, I certainly think it is. 4me689 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include monkeypox, in addition to Ukraine, the Olympics, the Queen's death/funeral & the Afghan earthquake. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- guys, what do you think about this collage I just made. I use the new picture of Queen Elizabeth II that I haven't brought up yet which is her lying-in-state. 4me689 (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would swap the photo of Elizabeth II's coffin and change Tonga for monkeypox. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Death section pictures for September (Result: Godard)
there's a dispute for who's going to get the 2nd picture for September so let's do a special section for this
-
American astronomer and astrophysicist, Frank Drake
-
French-Swiss film director, Jean-Luc Godard
here's my idea this is the vote for who should get the second picture, just sign your name under who should get it. 4me689 (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Either one works, but if there are no more extremely notable deaths this month that surpass both of them, let's go with both. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Frank Drake
- in my opinion the second picture should go to Frank Drake, because he accomplished more things. 4me689 (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Jean-Luc Godard
- IMO it should go to Godard - arguably among the most important and influential film-makers of his era. Would not be opposed to Drake getting the third pic if space opens up for it. TheScrubby (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Godard. Didn’t know about Drake until recently. Kyu (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Without any doubt. One of the most important film-makers ever. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, Godard definitely, but if there's enough room for Drake he should certainly be next (at the moment). Black Kite (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Godard - he's far more notable. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
PnB Rock (Result: exclusion)
Is PnB Rock international notable enough to be included, he has already be added a couple times already, just asking before I put my opinion. 4me689 (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude due to insufficient international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude Never even heard of him, sorry. Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude, the only song I know from PnB rock is that song he did with Ed Sheeran. even with that, the song he did with Ed Sheeran did not go number 1 in any country. the fact that he made a song with one of the biggest artists of modern times does not make PnB rock internationally notable enough to be included because the song wasn't a number one hit. 4me689 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022 (Result: exclusion)
Is the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022 notable enough to be included, just asking before I put my opinion. 4me689 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude - junior competitions of any description are nowhere near important enough for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude I agree with Jim Michael on this one. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Louise Fletcher (Result: inclusion)
Is Louise Fletcher notable enough to be included. in my opinion, Include, looking at her resume she won an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award and a Golden Globe Award, some of the most prestigious Awards in Hollywood. but still MrMimikyu1998 is still questioning her notability and he is making her look as notable as Gilbert Gottfried, Gottfried didn't really have any International Awards. like why are you trying to exclude someone with many of Hollywood's most prestigious Awards, that doesn't make sense to me. 4me689 (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. Fletcher has won international awards. So she should be included.
- Sometimes, I think we go a bit too far; when it comes to narrowing the list down. 2601:204:CF81:B1A0:E5DD:A7C7:8176:9465 (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- She won an Academy Award for Best Actress & a BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role. She's clearly internationally notable enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include. Award-winning actress, including a prominent role in one of IMDB's top 20 highest-rated films of all time. Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include. Not a difficult one. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Mahsa Amini protests (Result: borderline inclusion)
Perhaps someone should add something under “September” referring to the current protests in Iran? The ganymedian (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think they're quite notable enough for inclusion (yet), but let's wait and see. The situation appears quite volatile, so perhaps in the coming days/weeks they could be added. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- At what point do they become internationally notable enough? This is mostly a domestic event, but there have been smaller protests in some major cities of other countries. There's been an international reaction, but is it enough? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- If it leads to a change of government/regime, or deaths of protesters in the hundreds (it's currently ~50), or some sort of larger-scale uprising in the Middle East, it should be included IMO. Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Any International reaction is better than no international reaction. I personally think that we're being way too exclusive with some of the biggest domestic events in countries (started a new thread about it below) InvadingInvader (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- At what point do they become internationally notable enough? This is mostly a domestic event, but there have been smaller protests in some major cities of other countries. There's been an international reaction, but is it enough? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- For now, I'd say no but it has the potential to boil into a larger event. PaulRKil (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'd include it if it causes a larger conflict or becomes martyred like the Tiananmen Square uprisings. InvadingInvader (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Give it time, maybe they turn out to be effective, otherwise it's just embellishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.180.251 (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- @The ganymedian:, @Wjfox2005:, @PaulRKil:, @Jim Michael 2:, and @InvadingInvader:. should Mahsa Amini protests be in this years collage. 4me689 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would wait a little longer to see how it plays out @4me689 Kazakh unrest is still bigger in terms of fatalities for now, but we will see. The ganymedian (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- The Mahsa Amini protests aren't in the article, so they can't be in the collage. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think not necessarily in the collage unless they result in a regime change, but certainly they should be mentioned in the article. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'd agree with those who would like to take a wait and see approach, given that these protests are still ongoing and developing. We can always revisit this and include it once something major takes place as a consequence. TheScrubby (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Image size (Deaths)
I'm just wondering if we could increase the image size slightly? Obviously, that would increase the depth, but most of the names of the images bleed onto a second line of text, which of course increases them massively. With a larger width, many would fit on one line. Black Kite (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
How much detail?
There have been repeated alterations to some entries, especially during this month. Most of this relates to Liz Truss, Elizabeth II & the Russo-Ukrainian War. How much detail should we include? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Well, in my opinion, how much detail there should be is on if it's important. So, in my opinion the Biden excerpt that Wjfox2005 have been pushing should be excluded, cuz it's not that important. As for Queen Elizabeth, in my opinion it should only say Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Great Britain and the Commonwealth, or something like that. 4me689 (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Izhevsk school shooting (Result: exclusion)
Should today's vile school shooting in Russia that claimed the lives of 11 children and five more people — including the perpetrator — be included? After all, the May school shooting in Uvalde, Texas is included. I would argue 16 deaths is highly notable. 146.200.180.251 (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Neither is included, nor should be, because they're domestic events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Jim Michael 4me689 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would exclude, but not because it's a domestic event but on the basis of a lack of notable independent coverage. Shootings are so common these days, especially in the US and countries without strict gun control, that only the deadliest shootings covered widely by the world should be included. Moreover, based on my proposed "Dobbs Test" from below, Russia already dominates headlines for Ukraine. This isn't remotely notable compared to the invasion or stuff arising from the invasion. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The third picture for September (Result: Frank Drake gets third photo after Elizabeth II and Jean-Luc Godard)
There's a lot of hesitancy on on Frank Drake getting a photo int he death section. My opinion the third photo should go to Frank Drake as we already have a Hollywood worker in the form of Jean-Luc Godard, but in my opinion I fully support Louise Fletcher replacing Goddard, as fletcher is more notable. In my opinion it should be Frank Drake, Elizabeth II, and then Louise fletcher. Though I am still open for Godard to get the fourth picture, if they will ever be room for one. 4me689 (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Louise Fletcher is absolutely not more notable than Godard. You'll note that Godard was one of the very few people each year to get a full entry at WP:ITN on his death. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- To Black Kite: I would not replace Godard for Fletcher but it was only a suggestion because of Hurt and Poitier being Oscar winners themselves. I could easily go to the 2007 article and change Deborah Kerr’s image for Jane Wyman because Wyman won an Oscar while Kerr did not despite being nominated several times. Kyu (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- To @4me689 I do not agree with having Drake here. I only suggested Fletcher because she was an Oscar winner plus keeping Godard is important because he’s more well known than Drake. Plus, we already have William Hurt and Sidney Poitier in terms of Oscars so I’m thinking we should have someone else other than Drake. I never even heard of him until recently so if you want him so bad, have him. Kyu (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Godard actually won an Academy award as well, an Academy Honorary Award which is awarded for "extraordinary distinction in lifetime achievement, exceptional contributions to the state of motion picture arts and sciences". Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- You would have to desert reality to even so much as suggest Louise Fletcher is more notable than Jean-Luc Godard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.180.251 (talk • contribs)
- Strong Oppose any notion that Fletcher is more notable and more image-worthy than Godard, as per Black Kite. TheScrubby (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Cross-listing certain domestic events in main year articles
I think that we might need to adjust some of the standards here for event inclusion. There are certain events that as of the writing of this article, are very significant in world history, especially in reaction, though only limited to one country primarily in what actually happened. These should be limited in inclusion to only include the defining events for each country, but included nonetheless as these events may not only stoke international reactions but also define countries for years to come. There are a few of these events that come to mind for me:
- Mahsa Amini protests (assuming they either cause a full revolution or become martyred like the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests)
- Dobbs v. Jackson
- The one or two biggest Atlantic hurricanes of the year (once hurricane season is over, judging only by what we've run into so far though it looks like it's gonna be either Fiona or Ian)
- Iraqi political crisis
- If a North Korean nuclear test occurs, throw it in.
These are just a few ideas, but based on the immense amount of notability that these events (especially Dobbs v. Jackson) has gained outside of the United States (though dwarved by domestic searches on Google Trends as seen here), we can't be comparing everything to apartheid, the invasion of Ukraine, or only the most notable events of the year. I encourage the discussion (or rediscussion) of these events. TLDR: We're being too exclusive and censoring a little bit too much from main year articles; it's about time we do something about it. InvadingInvader (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude Dobbs v. Jackson protests. They led to nothing, the size of the protests was surprisingly miniscule, the cause was completely domestic and there is nothing realistically that would have happened if the protests had gone on. Congress would have attempted to codify Roe anyway, regardless of the protests. These protests were almost as useless and ineffective as the 2020 stop the steal election protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.180.251 (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is false. First of all, consider the mere fact we have an article on 2022 abortion protests. They didn't lead to nothing; they led to action being taken in both directions. West Virginia and Idaho for example have banned abortion in their state, while many cities and activist groups are actively sponsoring interstate abortions. Electoral analysts additionally say that the repeal of Roe v. Wade costed the Republican Party their edge in the upcoming US Midterms. Reactions aren't limited to the US either; Boris and Macron have all spoken against the decision, along with Olaf Scholz, Justin Trudeau, Pedro Sanchez, as well as various world leaders/officials. Boris Johnson put it best perhaps: "This is not our court, it’s another jurisdiction, but clearly it has massive impacts on people’s thinking around the world. It’s a very important decision". InvadingInvader (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- The only international thing about that is mere criticism by political leaders, who quite often comment on domestic events outside their respective countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Any criticism or reaction is better than no criticism or reaction. Ceteris paribus, with such reactions, world leaders and the populations they represent see this as on the same level of importance as the death of Abe and Gorbachev, and much more important than Turkey and Israel restoring relations or the Whisky War, both of which are on the article as is. I'm not saying they should be removed, but people clearly care more about Dobbs v. Jackson than Canada and Denmark resolving an island dispute. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- If the reaction is merely (written or spoken) words rather than military action or sanctions, it's not important. It's mere criticism, comment, conversation etc.
- I've already stated my objections to the Whisky War being included. It was a petty, non-violent dispute over a small, barren, remote, uninhabited island. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Any criticism or reaction is better than no criticism or reaction. Ceteris paribus, with such reactions, world leaders and the populations they represent see this as on the same level of importance as the death of Abe and Gorbachev, and much more important than Turkey and Israel restoring relations or the Whisky War, both of which are on the article as is. I'm not saying they should be removed, but people clearly care more about Dobbs v. Jackson than Canada and Denmark resolving an island dispute. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- The only international thing about that is mere criticism by political leaders, who quite often comment on domestic events outside their respective countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is false. First of all, consider the mere fact we have an article on 2022 abortion protests. They didn't lead to nothing; they led to action being taken in both directions. West Virginia and Idaho for example have banned abortion in their state, while many cities and activist groups are actively sponsoring interstate abortions. Electoral analysts additionally say that the repeal of Roe v. Wade costed the Republican Party their edge in the upcoming US Midterms. Reactions aren't limited to the US either; Boris and Macron have all spoken against the decision, along with Olaf Scholz, Justin Trudeau, Pedro Sanchez, as well as various world leaders/officials. Boris Johnson put it best perhaps: "This is not our court, it’s another jurisdiction, but clearly it has massive impacts on people’s thinking around the world. It’s a very important decision". InvadingInvader (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- The Mahsa Amini protests may become important enough, as they spread to other countries. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is domestic; it's highly unlikely that anyone would want something similar in another other country to be included. Hurricanes (& other disasters) are only included if they severely affect multiple countries &/or there's a major, physical international response (actually doing things on site rather than prayers, condolences, sympathy etc.). The 2021–2022 Iraqi political crisis is domestic; political crises are common and should only be included if they result in changes of national government. Tests by N Korea (or any other country) should only be included if there's a major international response (sanctions, military action etc. rather than mere criticism, conversations etc.) Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- The concept in question is not on those events specifically (those are just examples) but rather defining moments for nations as a whole. We're being too exclusive in our entries and filtering out too many events which have a notable impact on regions or the largest nations just because they're too domestic, so I'm proposing that we include some domestic events. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- None of those you mention have major effects on multiple countries. Defining moments for nations belong on year by country articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Jim Michael 2 "Defining moments for nations belong on year by country articles" That's exactly what I think is not the best philosophy for this all of this article's potential inclusions and that should change when it comes to the inclusion of events here.
- Why should an event which defines a country in such a way to cause various protests on both sides of an argument be limited to that country's article, especially if there is any newsworthy international reaction at all? InvadingInvader (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Because they're domestic events. Such things happen frequently. Events that define countries & years should be on the relevant year by country articles. Many domestic events are widely reported internationally. It makes no sense to put them on main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- "Many domestic events are widely reported internationally."; what about only including the most important domestic events? I know that OSE isn't the best argument, but precedent in nearly every one of these year articles has been to include extremely significant domestic events which stoke international reaction, like January 6 in the US, China's Hong Kong National Security Law, the 2020 Belarusian protests, and numerous elections in many democracies. I agree that not every event should be included, but we already do this in essence. As evidenced from prior year articles, Wikipedia consensus for the most part EXCEPT for this article under the exclusionist philosophy which is loudly pushed is that events which are widely covered internationally, no matter if domestic or international, is included. I'm interpreting from what you're saying, including Dobbs would relatively be as bad as summoning Godzilla and having him destroy San Francisco. What possible harm can be done from events as domestically significant as the overturning of Roe v. Wade which stoke ANY international reaction at all?
- It makes no sense to put them on main year articles...it does make sense. These events change countries vastly; states in the US are already rushing to pass laws banning or protecting abortion. I'm primarily using Dobbs v. Jackson and abortion in my arguments, but there are many other domestic events which have occurred and likely will occur. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Main year articles aren't meant to be inclusionist; they're meant to be selective. They're for important international events, births & deaths only. There are a huge number of year by country articles for domestic events. Like I said, if the international reaction is in the form of military action or sanctions, it becomes significantly international & is included. In the far larger number of cases in which the international reaction is in words only, it isn't significantly international & we don't include them. You again bring up abortion in the US. Yes, it's important - in the US. Which is why it's in the lead & body of 2022 in the United States. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- You bring up exactly what should be changed, even if marginally to include domestic events which impact the world. I also think that you are severely underestimating the impact of words. It's a balancing act with this article, but ultimately, in general, Wikipedia should be the people's encyclopedia which reflects what the people think is important, especially with regard to the press and world events. Of course we have people like us here to guide, but it has been proven to me that the world sees Dobbs as a major inflection point, even if it's primarily US centered. I would agree with you on excluding the Whisky island; it's not something people care about. But it's more important to create an encyclopedia which is useful to the people rather than one more useful to only society's most intellectual.
- Like it or not, we are a popular and widely-used site, and we have other encyclopedias which are more tuned to the experts, nerds, or more academically or foreign-policy minded. The article would be better if we covered events that are notable using both in action and in press coverage, judging on a combination of coverage and effect. Dobbs can be a good benchmark and form the "Dobbs test": if a domestic event is on a similar impact within a country as Dobbs and gains international knowledge on the same scale and reaction as Dobbs, include it on the international events list, as the international population thinks more about it and it has impacted a major country specifically. If not, throw it only in the domestic events list.
- This "Dobbs" test would allow for an exclusive collection of events which define nations and gain international recognition to be included while excluding widely-covered events which are not as important or defining. I'm on the same page with you on events like Depp v. Heard; it's just something that gained attention and had minimal impact on its country aside from giving the American populace to meme and talk about. This test would also ensure that less-notable events which you oppose inclusion of, like the Whisky War between Canada and Denmark, are topics that would be excluded, as only those who religiously follow geography would care about it.
- Jim, I agree that we have to maintain some amount of selectiveness or exclusivity for lists. But what people care about is more important than a few editors. World leaders are a Wikipedia is for the people, by the people, so the best thing for us to do would be to serve the people. We're not Citizendium where everything is more so by experts for a more niche populace. This new standard would improve the article by allowing for events the world cares about to be included while maintaining selectiveness. We're excluding events that matter to quite a lot of the world; Google Trends data for the days leading up to and after Dobbs showed a CLEAR spike in worldwide interest for the subject. I hope we can work together and agree on a middle ground instead of each retreating to "my way or the highway positions"; this can be a middle ground where we take into account your stance on maintaining exclusivity in this article while addressing important domestic events which are viewed with albeit lesser international importance but extremely significant domestic importance and reasonable international importance nonetheless. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- There won't ever be a 'Dobbs test'. The large majority of people outsode the US haven't even heard of Dobbs. We don't measure notability by Google trends. If we did, we'd have to include Depp v Heard, and in 2021 the murder of Sarah Everard & the killing of Gabby Petito. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Jim Michael 2 (I'll respond both to your comment under Tests/attempts and here under this reply). You're comparing apples to oranges, Jim. The murders/killings of Gabby Petito and Sarah Everard, as sad as they turned out, are trends, just like Depp v. Heard or any other celebrity drama, or a minor mass shooting, again as sad as they are.
- "We don't measure notability by Google trends" This is completely false. WP:GNUM verbatim suggests that Google Trends can help to establish notability. Please refrain from confusing your own philosophy and ideals with Wikipedia precent, guidelines, and policy.
- "The large majority of people outside the US haven't even heard of Dobbs"...This claim is factually inaccurate. Numerous sources from outside the US have ascertained the existence and role that Dobbs has played (see South China Morning Post, Taiwan News, the Hindustan Times, Arab News, and France24. Based on the above sources, it is impossible to reliably argue that most of the connected world has not heard of Dobbs v. Jackson in some capacity.
- From what I am seeing, I'm getting the impression that you are looking at only one aspect of my argument and ignoring everything else. I proposed a solution that took into account both my ideals and your ideals, yet you rejected it. Please try to reach middle ground more often rather than just rejecting everything you don't agree with in a "my way or the highway" approach; such mentality, comparable to behaving as if you and maybe a few of your closest friends own an article, only leads to more conflict and less stuff getting done.
- As an additional friendly reminder, please make sure to fact-check your arguments. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- That link about Google & notability refers to helping determine if something is notable enough for a WP article. Being included on main year articles has a far higher bar.
- I'm talking about ordinary people, not journalists who report international news. Ask people who aren't American & don't live in the US what they think of Dobbs, and the vast majority won't have a clue who/what you're talking about.
- You're trying to change the way things have been done on main year articles for years. The point of them is to document the international world. Year by country articles cover domestic events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- "Being included on main year articles has a far higher bar." how come we have had notable American events included in
- "Ask people who aren't American & don't live in the US what they think of Dobbs, and the vast majority won't have a clue who/what you're talking about." I have family and friends abroad. Dobbs was the gavel heard around the world. Everybody who is literate and is connected to the world has heard of Dobbs, either by name or knowing that abortion is no longer constitutionally protected in the US by some form.
- We have covered significant domestic events in the past, and if anything, I'm returning us to a more informed precedent which you have tried to remove. You're making stuff much more exclusive than in past years.
- I suggested the Dobbs Test as a middle ground which suits both of our opinions, and we do agree on quite a bit actually with regard to excluding trending domestic events. Yet when it comes simply to including a SMALL amount of domestic events which trigger an international reaction, you reject every proposal I make. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- There won't ever be a 'Dobbs test'. The large majority of people outsode the US haven't even heard of Dobbs. We don't measure notability by Google trends. If we did, we'd have to include Depp v Heard, and in 2021 the murder of Sarah Everard & the killing of Gabby Petito. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Main year articles aren't meant to be inclusionist; they're meant to be selective. They're for important international events, births & deaths only. There are a huge number of year by country articles for domestic events. Like I said, if the international reaction is in the form of military action or sanctions, it becomes significantly international & is included. In the far larger number of cases in which the international reaction is in words only, it isn't significantly international & we don't include them. You again bring up abortion in the US. Yes, it's important - in the US. Which is why it's in the lead & body of 2022 in the United States. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Because they're domestic events. Such things happen frequently. Events that define countries & years should be on the relevant year by country articles. Many domestic events are widely reported internationally. It makes no sense to put them on main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- None of those you mention have major effects on multiple countries. Defining moments for nations belong on year by country articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- The concept in question is not on those events specifically (those are just examples) but rather defining moments for nations as a whole. We're being too exclusive in our entries and filtering out too many events which have a notable impact on regions or the largest nations just because they're too domestic, so I'm proposing that we include some domestic events. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- here are my opinions
- Mahsa Amini protests - Include, it will probably lead to political changes in iran
- Dobbs v. Jackson - in hindsight I do kind of agree with jim michael
- hurricanes - unless it's hurricane Katrina, exclude cuz hurricanes are normally domestic.
- Iraqi political crisis - same as jim michael
- a North Korean nuclear test - also same as jim michael. 4me689 (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude all except maybe the Mahsa Amini protests, which I'm neutral on for the time being but overall think we should wait and see the end result before making a final judgement on inclusion. Including Dobbs v. Jackson would be pure, blatant Americentrism. Hurricanes I would have to agree with Jim Michael's point that they should only be included if they severely impact multiple countries, and/or if there's a major, physical international response rather than mere "thoughts and prayers". TheScrubby (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- What is wrong with one or two domestic events per country, especially if it defined the country for the year? InvadingInvader (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- If this is in reference to Dobbs, I’ll just say that there was already a firm discussion about it (that you can read under “Roe V Wade Overturning” in Archive 5) which resulted in exclusion; I gave my two cents there and my views on the matter remain the same. TheScrubby (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's more so in for including one or two extremely important domestic events which have received an international reaction in this article. Dobbs was my suggestion for loosening standards since it was probably the most major domestic event in the US that gained international attention, but it's more about including some defining domestic events. If maybe North Korea had a Tiananmen Square like incident which became martyred and had world leaders reacting, sure. I used Dobbs as my primary suggestion since it gained attention outside of the US and reactions from world leaders. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- You're the only person who's pushing for Dobbs. It's the thing you mention the most often on here, despite you having no support for it. The reactions were words only, which doesn't create international notability. World leaders often mention domestic events in other countries, including laws, crimes, disasters etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- World leaders are treating Dobbs on the same level as Gorbachev's death, which was a no brainer to include. And I'm not pushing for just Dobbs; I'm pushing for a small amount notable domestic events which gain an international reaction to be included. Events like these should all be no-brainers to include. And it doesn't just apply to the US; if India ruled on banning abortion. I suggested a middle ground in the Dobbs test, but you rejected it. I found logical fallacies in your arguments yet you just kept pushing them. Over and over and over again on this issue I suggested that we try to reach a middle ground. You just shrug me off. Start treating me better and my ideas more constructively, please. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- You're the only person who's pushing for Dobbs. It's the thing you mention the most often on here, despite you having no support for it. The reactions were words only, which doesn't create international notability. World leaders often mention domestic events in other countries, including laws, crimes, disasters etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's more so in for including one or two extremely important domestic events which have received an international reaction in this article. Dobbs was my suggestion for loosening standards since it was probably the most major domestic event in the US that gained international attention, but it's more about including some defining domestic events. If maybe North Korea had a Tiananmen Square like incident which became martyred and had world leaders reacting, sure. I used Dobbs as my primary suggestion since it gained attention outside of the US and reactions from world leaders. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- If this is in reference to Dobbs, I’ll just say that there was already a firm discussion about it (that you can read under “Roe V Wade Overturning” in Archive 5) which resulted in exclusion; I gave my two cents there and my views on the matter remain the same. TheScrubby (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- What is wrong with one or two domestic events per country, especially if it defined the country for the year? InvadingInvader (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Tests/attempts
How can these be considered to be important enough for main year articles? We'd include many on each if they were. Many are the first of their type or are unusual in some way. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- So, from our beginnings as cavemen, to the early 21st century, humans have now advanced to the point where we're literally altering the movement of astronomical bodies in space, but that's apparently trivial to you. https://twitter.com/fallingstarIfA/status/1574583529731670021 Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's trivial for this planet unless it can be done in a measured, controlled way. Until then, it's experimentation. I'm not just talking about this - weapons testing has also been added to year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Most tests aren't actually that interesting, groundbreaking or notable, though. This one is all three, and hence got worldwide coverage. It should stay. Black Kite (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- How is it trivial if it gained worldwide coverage? InvadingInvader (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- International media coverage doesn't show international notability or importance. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- That partially seems like a logical fallacy. Wide international media coverage practically equates to international notability. Importance is a debatable thing, but this makes the cut for importance; nothing else like it has been done yet. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't - many things receive a lot of international media coverage without being internationally notable, including disasters, high-profile crimes (such as the murder of Sarah Everard & the killing of Gabby Petito), sports events in which the sports have many fans in many countries and the various activities of domestic but internationally known celebs such as The Kardashians & Jenners.
- This is only important if it's able to be done in a reliable, controlled way. We don't include things on the basis of them being firsts. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- FYI, my response is linked to the above thread at Talk:2022#Cross-listing certain domestic events in main year articles. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- That partially seems like a logical fallacy. Wide international media coverage practically equates to international notability. Importance is a debatable thing, but this makes the cut for importance; nothing else like it has been done yet. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- International media coverage doesn't show international notability or importance. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's trivial for this planet unless it can be done in a measured, controlled way. Until then, it's experimentation. I'm not just talking about this - weapons testing has also been added to year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II (Result: exclusion)
I understand this is old, but shouldn't it be included? It wasn't merely an anniversary — there was a bank holiday, public demonstrations and celebrations, and a concert was held. Doesn't this meet the notability criteria? 146.200.180.251 (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- We don't include any anniversaries on main year articles, regardless of what does or doesn't accompany them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- No, this belongs on 2022 in the United Kingdom (where it's already listed). Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude - belongs in Year in Topic, as with other anniversaries. TheScrubby (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude, as per scrubby, Jim Michael &Wjfox2005 4me689 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Coolio (Result: borderline inclusion)
Should Coolio be included? I know some of his songs and was a Grammy award winner in 1996 but I think he should be excluded. What do you think? Kyu (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- No idea who he is. Doesn't seem as notable based on what you're telling me. If you can prove he was liked notably in multiple world regions, I would support you on including him. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- I could but I’m waiting for other responses too. Can’t just add him like that. He was a rapper best known for the albums, It takes a thief, Gangsta’s Paradise and My Soul. Kyu (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- @InvadingInvader:, and @MrMimikyu1998:. just curious, should Coolio get a picture. 4me689 (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Probably not. Kyu (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- When a figure is a (strong) candidate for exclusion, it goes without saying that uploading an image of them is not an option. TheScrubby (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- No. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Probably not. Kyu (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- @InvadingInvader:, and @MrMimikyu1998:. just curious, should Coolio get a picture. 4me689 (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- I could but I’m waiting for other responses too. Can’t just add him like that. He was a rapper best known for the albums, It takes a thief, Gangsta’s Paradise and My Soul. Kyu (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- ahh I'm shocked to hear his death, he should be included 100%. 4me689 (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude due to insufficient international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- seriously, @TheScrubby: You would have to desert reality to even so much as suggest Coolio is not notable, he won a Grammy, he has one of the biggest hits of the 90s, and your as sill saying he is not notable. 4me689 (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- I never claimed that he wasn't notable. I'm saying his international (i.e. outside of the United States) notability is insufficient for inclusion here. Belongs in 2022 deaths in the United States. TheScrubby (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- He has albums and singles that have charted in other countries. Shrug. 2601:204:CF81:B1A0:4039:838D:EE48:D702 (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- So do we include every artist of every country who happened to have albums and singles chart beyond their home country? TheScrubby (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- By that measure; Tony Bennett would not be included because he has no awards outside of the US. You see how crazy that sounds ? And with number one hits to boot in many countries. ( Same as Coolio by the way ).
- And yet Jim Michael a few months ago, said that Bennett qualifies. Shrug.
- I know we have issue with Americentrism here. But we're taking this a bit too far. Meanwhile, People like Gary Brooker have been included, and I support his inclustion too, but if he's included why not Coolio ? 2601:204:CF81:B1A0:4039:838D:EE48:D702 (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Gary Brooker was included because he was the main figure from Procol Harum which did achieve international notability, although in this case we would only include Brooker from the band, not anybody else. As for the point about Tony Bennett, I’ll let @Jim Michael 2: speak for himself. TheScrubby (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- @TheScrubby: if you don't recognize Coolio, here's his most famous song, Gangster's Paradise, you probably heard it once or twice.
- file:Coolio feat. L.V - Gangsta's Paradise.ogg. 4me689 (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Whether or not I or anybody else here recognises Coolio or his work is not relevant. TheScrubby (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Gary Brooker was included because he was the main figure from Procol Harum which did achieve international notability, although in this case we would only include Brooker from the band, not anybody else. As for the point about Tony Bennett, I’ll let @Jim Michael 2: speak for himself. TheScrubby (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- So do we include every artist of every country who happened to have albums and singles chart beyond their home country? TheScrubby (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response, Scrubby. Appreciate it. Kyu (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- seriously, @TheScrubby: You would have to desert reality to even so much as suggest Coolio is not notable, he won a Grammy, he has one of the biggest hits of the 90s, and your as sill saying he is not notable. 4me689 (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- I wonder what @Wjfox2005:, @Black Kite:, @PaulRKil:, @Alsoriano97:, @TDKR Chicago 101:, and @Deb:. thinks about Coolio inclusion. 4me689 (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I would include Coolio because I know of him and I'm both old and living outside the US. It doesn't of course follow that others with similar career histories should be included. Deb (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Here it comes into play whether singers who have been globally popular for a single song are eligible for inclusion. For example, we would include Psy? In the case of Coolie, I remain neutral, but I tend to support his inclusion. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is hard for me as a big Hip Hop fan and as a fan of Coolio's. He certainly left his mark on Hip Hop in the 90s but he never reached the lasting legacy that rappers like Tupac or Jay-Z reached. I'd say, if anything, he would be a borderline include and I am basing that mostly on precedent as we included DMX in 2021. PaulRKil (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include, the rules here are just ridiculous. I do not know an acting Serbian head of state with ceremonial power or another Serbian prime minister, who held the office when Serbia was not a country but only a constituent republic of Yugoslavia, are why more "internationally" notable then Coolio, an iconic rapper of the '90s? --Norden1990 (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- you've got to be kidding us. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- What's funny is this system. "International notability" means "anti-US" attitude here. It must be acknowledged that the USA has a far greater influence on global culture than all other countries combined. Consequently, a Grammy-winner rapper is definitely "internationally" notable. If this guy had been French, there would be no question of his inclusion. Instead, there is this continuous effort to exclude well-known American (=US) persons from the lists. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- It is precisely this kind of Americentrism which had until last year permeated these pages and which ought never to be revived. Even now, there’s more Americans on these lists than that of any other nationality. The fact of the matter is, until last year figures that came from the United States were more than a little disproportionately included - and when I say that, what I mean is that their foreign equivalents would not even remotely get a look-in, and would receive far greater scrutiny than those from the United States. What we’re now doing is making it more even and fair for everyone, and not have figures from one country have a lax set of standards for inclusion in contrast to those from every other country. TheScrubby (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm glad that you at least admit that there is a double standard to the detriment of the USA. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Clearly you didn’t read what I said. There is no “detriment of the USA”, on the contrary beforehand they were disproportionately included. Minor, domestic US congressmen and celebrities unknown outside the US were being included without scrutiny while their exact international counterparts were being questioned and excluded. You call that fair? Get outta here with the Americentric nonsense. TheScrubby (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Behave yourself and leave this tone, or I will report you. We are talking about Coolio or Donald Rumsfeld and not about domestic US congressmen. Of course, they have no international recognition. However, Coolio represents a different category, he is a well known musician outside US too. I can list maybe three or four rappers (I hate this genre) and Coolio has always been one of them. --Norden1990 (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Clearly you didn’t read what I said. There is no “detriment of the USA”, on the contrary beforehand they were disproportionately included. Minor, domestic US congressmen and celebrities unknown outside the US were being included without scrutiny while their exact international counterparts were being questioned and excluded. You call that fair? Get outta here with the Americentric nonsense. TheScrubby (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm glad that you at least admit that there is a double standard to the detriment of the USA. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
You're American, aren't you? Or maybe you have only been exposed to the English language through American TV, which would give you the impression that the US is more influential than "all other countries combined" - an impression that, to most English speakers, sounds ludicrous.Deb (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)- I suggest, you should read WP:PA. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- It is precisely this kind of Americentrism which had until last year permeated these pages and which ought never to be revived. Even now, there’s more Americans on these lists than that of any other nationality. The fact of the matter is, until last year figures that came from the United States were more than a little disproportionately included - and when I say that, what I mean is that their foreign equivalents would not even remotely get a look-in, and would receive far greater scrutiny than those from the United States. What we’re now doing is making it more even and fair for everyone, and not have figures from one country have a lax set of standards for inclusion in contrast to those from every other country. TheScrubby (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- What's funny is this system. "International notability" means "anti-US" attitude here. It must be acknowledged that the USA has a far greater influence on global culture than all other countries combined. Consequently, a Grammy-winner rapper is definitely "internationally" notable. If this guy had been French, there would be no question of his inclusion. Instead, there is this continuous effort to exclude well-known American (=US) persons from the lists. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- you've got to be kidding us. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Exclude. I'm sure that I'm not alone in saying he is a one-hit wonder. The majority of people have no idea who he is, they just know one of his songs. And rap is a very niche genre, lacks international notability. I'd argue many of the recent rapper deaths should also be removed. They're not internationally notable enough.
Also, @4me689 could at least pretend he isn't a young boy by not copying other people’s sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.180.251 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- He wasn't a one-hit wonder. A few of his other songs were also top 10 hits in multiple countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- "rap is a very niche genre." – seriously, wtf? Please read: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/04/07/most-popular-music-genres-america/ Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- you have to be crazy to say "rap is a very niche genre", rap is a worldwide genre, with many different song in many different languages. and like Jim Michael said, Coolio was never a one-hit wonder. and Include Coolio, and same for Brooker and Bennett. 4me689 (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Strong include One of the most famous rappers of the last 30 years. Grammy award winner. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include Brooker, Bennett & Coolio, due to some of their albums & singles entering the top 10 in several countries' charts. Of those, only Bennett may qualify for a photo. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Frankly I would argue he is as notable outside the US as Andrew Neil is outside the UK. Neither are notable enough and both should be excluded (in Neil’s case, when he dies he should be excluded). Adding this rapper would be just because you like his music. That's not a good enough reason. Strong exclude from my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.180.251 (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- That's crazy. I don't even like Rap; but, BUT, as Michael said; he has had chart hits in many countries. 2601:204:CF81:B1A0:4039:838D:EE48:D702 (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Let me be clear: if Donald Rumsfeld, the mind behind two of the three largest-scale conflicts of the 21st century — helping kill hundreds of thousands of people — is not more notable than a Prime Minister of a country as insignificant on the world stage as Mauritius, then in no planet, galaxy or universe should Coolio be added. His addition would mark the death of year articles, because you'd be adding people based on how much you like their music. He must never be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.180.251 (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Rumsfeld is a politician. You can’t compare politics to Music.
- And we already had well defined definitions for politicians. 2601:204:CF81:B1A0:18D6:76AC:A79D:6102 (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- No-one is saying that Rumsfeld shouldn't be included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would include Coolio, quite apart from Gangsta's Paradise which was No.1 in about a million countries, he had quite a few other high-selling singles worldwide, won a Grammy, etc. And I'm not American. As for the other two mentioned, I would include Bennett and I'm 50/50 on Brooker. Incidentally, I'm not a fan of rap either, but "rap is a very niche genre" is the most bonkers thing I've read on this page for a long time. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- While I’m also no fan of the genre and have my own doubts about Coolio’s inclusion, I have to agree with you r.e. the niche comment. TheScrubby (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
It appears people aren't greatly aware of the many meanings of the word niche; among them is the definition I used, which says that rap is appealing to a very specific group of people. That is, someone who is into the Beatles is less likely to enjoy rap than someone who likes rap enjoying the Beatles. Same with classical music. Every soul on this earth knows who Mozart and the Beatles were, but very few people outside the rap “community” (I detest that word when used in this context) know who Coolio was. 146.200.180.251 (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- You're letting your personal biases against Rap ( regardless of the merits of the said music ), cloud your judgement. 2601:204:CF81:B1A0:E154:CDAE:75F8:C645 (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
What should be the standards of inclusion for musical artists ?
International Awards ? Well that would exclude people like Tony Bennett, Coolio, Johnny Mathis, who had 0 awards outside of the US.
Top Chart hits in other countries ? 2601:204:CF81:B1A0:4039:838D:EE48:D702 (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's dependent on a case by case basis. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the initiative, in the wake of the discussions to do with Coolio’s inclusion. One thing I’d like to bring up in relation to this is whether or not being a recipient of a Grammy Award is automatically sufficient for inclusion here. The fact that Coolio was a Grammy winner was brought up multiple times as justification for inclusion, yet there seems to be no real consensus on whether we should include Grammy winners (there has been far more discussion on say, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees, where they are included on a case-by-case basis and as a secondary point for inclusion rather than a primary, automatic point for inclusion). TheScrubby (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Grammy awards should only be a factor if said musical artist is/was not from the US.
- Coolio IS from the US; so other factors should be considered such as does said Musical artists have multiple top ten hits ( albums or singles ) in more than just one country ? 2601:204:CF81:B1A0:E154:CDAE:75F8:C645 (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735 (Result: inclusion)
Can we re-visit inclusion for China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735? I think there tends to be a bias toward including significant events in China due to the closed off nature of its government. It is, regardless of whether or not the crash was intentional, a significant enough air disaster to warrant inclusion due to the scale of the disaster and the fact it involves one of China's largest international airlines. Additionally, based on precedent, air disasters contained to one country have been included in other years such as Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303 in 2020, Aeroflot Flight 1492 in 2019, the 2018 Russian Air Force Antonov An-26 crash and Cubana de Aviación Flight 972 in 2018. Many of these domestic flights had a lower casualty count than 5735 and lack any kind of extraordinary event as in the case of both Malaysia Airlines crashes in 2014 or any of the 737 MAX Crashes.
If a majority of you believe it should stay excluded, I would say that if the Chinese government finally does release their assessment and concludes that it was an intentional crash, then I think it should be included. Essentially every independent org along with the FAA in the United States believe the crash was intentional, but the Chinese government investigation is ongoing and it is unclear when those results will be released. PaulRKil (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include. Based on what I know and what you're saying, this should be included. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include as per InvadingInvader 4me689 (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include. I agree this event is notable and the fixation on the word domestic annoys me at times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.180.251 (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- A few days ago, you said on here that this article should include Barbara Walters' 93rd birthday. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- This dig is irrelevant to the conversation. But if we want to go there, you fervently argued against the inclusion of the Assassination of Shinzo Abe. PaulRKil (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- A few days ago, you said on here that this article should include Barbara Walters' 93rd birthday. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude this domestic event. Insufficiently notable things are added to & removed from year articles all the time; presence of similar events in other articles doesn't mean they should be here. We don't include domestic events in main year articles. Media coverage, being deliberate, having the highest death toll of the year for its type of event etc. aren't reasons to include. I say the same regardless of where such events take place. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- How is a significant aviation disaster with high cost of life, by one of the worlds largest airlines, during an era of air travel where such disasters are increasingly rare "insufficiently notable"? That is ridiculous. Air, rail, and maritime disasters with hundreds of lives lost are significant regardless of if it is "domestic" or not. This is equivalent to excluding the Sinking of MV Sewol based on the grounds it was a Korean ferry, sinking in Korean waters, and the dead consisting of only Korean passengers. PaulRKil (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- I've said why - because it's domestic. Main year articles exclude domestic events. Disasters with triple-digit death tolls happen every year. Even if it were rare, we don't include things on that basis - nor do we for being the deadliest, biggest, fastest, most costly etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- If we stuck to such a rigid definition, then half the content in these year articles would be gone. Maybe that would look good in your view, but then the article would fail to serve its purpose to document significant events that occurred each year, including travel related ones. PaulRKil (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Personally, I see the exclusion of notable domestic events with international coverage as censorship, and I imagine most of you have read or at least heard of Wikipedia not being censored. This is just my opinion, and I can understand where Jim Michael and editors who think like him are coming from, but we are becoming WAY too rigid with events and standards. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- I've said why - because it's domestic. Main year articles exclude domestic events. Disasters with triple-digit death tolls happen every year. Even if it were rare, we don't include things on that basis - nor do we for being the deadliest, biggest, fastest, most costly etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- This comes to my point of the article being too exclusive. By letting in one or two of the most internationally-covered domestic events per country, we can increase the scope of this very tumultuous year for many countries. Simply too many notable events are being excluded, not just in the US but other countries. I agree with Scrubby on this not being an Americentric list, but including ONE OR TWO of the MOST NOTABLE AND INTERNATIONALLY COVERED domestic events PER COUNTRY should help. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- You're arguing to include things that don't have significant international effects. Adding one or two events per country wouldn't improve main year articles; it'd swamp them with things that shouldn't be there. People who are interested in particular countries by year read those relevant articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- How would one or two of the most important domestic events which receive significant international attention "swamp" an article? Plus, if people around the world care deeply about one country's domestic event and it has a notable impact on a country, it's a no brainer. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- You said one or two domestic events per country, per year. Of course that'd swamp the article. Readers who are interested in particular countries & years will read the relevant subarticles. Loads of domestic events have a notable impact on the country in which they take place. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- One or two for the most significant domestic events should not be a problem. You're making it seem like that by adding a single domestic event to this article will cause Kim Jong-un to launch a nuclear attack against the Wikimedia foundation. There are always exceptions to standards. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- That's a ridiculous strawman. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm just using an analogy to compare how extreme I perceive the standards you push to be. How would the inclusion of internationally-releavant domestic events ruin the article? I'm in favor of limiting it to only one or two as long as the events are internationally known themselves. I'm only pushing definingly notable domestic events which drew international attention. Dobbs is my example since it gained the attention of world leaders and the world populace, an aspect of Dobbs you unsuccessfully tried to prove wrong above, and as seen in this BBC article, has caused smaller anti-abortion protests to spark in the UK. Please work towards a constructive middle ground instead of vehemently opposing every event for the sole reason of being domestic.InvadingInvader (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- They're not internationally relevant. Being domestic is the most common reason for excluding events & people from main year articles. Loads of domestic events receive international media coverage. Every year there are domestic protests which trigger much smaller, related protests in other countries, mostly by diasporas &/or people who are already sympathetic to their cause. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm just using an analogy to compare how extreme I perceive the standards you push to be. How would the inclusion of internationally-releavant domestic events ruin the article? I'm in favor of limiting it to only one or two as long as the events are internationally known themselves. I'm only pushing definingly notable domestic events which drew international attention. Dobbs is my example since it gained the attention of world leaders and the world populace, an aspect of Dobbs you unsuccessfully tried to prove wrong above, and as seen in this BBC article, has caused smaller anti-abortion protests to spark in the UK. Please work towards a constructive middle ground instead of vehemently opposing every event for the sole reason of being domestic.InvadingInvader (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- That's a ridiculous strawman. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- One or two for the most significant domestic events should not be a problem. You're making it seem like that by adding a single domestic event to this article will cause Kim Jong-un to launch a nuclear attack against the Wikimedia foundation. There are always exceptions to standards. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- You said one or two domestic events per country, per year. Of course that'd swamp the article. Readers who are interested in particular countries & years will read the relevant subarticles. Loads of domestic events have a notable impact on the country in which they take place. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- How would one or two of the most important domestic events which receive significant international attention "swamp" an article? Plus, if people around the world care deeply about one country's domestic event and it has a notable impact on a country, it's a no brainer. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- You're arguing to include things that don't have significant international effects. Adding one or two events per country wouldn't improve main year articles; it'd swamp them with things that shouldn't be there. People who are interested in particular countries by year read those relevant articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- How is a significant aviation disaster with high cost of life, by one of the worlds largest airlines, during an era of air travel where such disasters are increasingly rare "insufficiently notable"? That is ridiculous. Air, rail, and maritime disasters with hundreds of lives lost are significant regardless of if it is "domestic" or not. This is equivalent to excluding the Sinking of MV Sewol based on the grounds it was a Korean ferry, sinking in Korean waters, and the dead consisting of only Korean passengers. PaulRKil (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Strong Include as I completely agree with Invading Invader here. Jim Michael 2 is too often opposed to inclusion in my view, and as very few events are actually international, the 2022 article would be all but erased if he had sole control over it. We should definitely include disasters such as this one and Hurricane Ian; after all, why is Hurricane Katrina in the 2005 article? 146.200.180.251 (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- I personally encourage everybody to take a piece of cake from this. I've said this before in my "Dobbs test" proposal (see this section of the talk page I started), but Wikipedia isn't Citizendium where it's by experts for nerds. It's supposed to be built for everyone and should be based on impactful and notable events which people care about (an idea I sometimes describe as Wikipedia being the People's Encyclopedia, by the people for the people). If people around the world care about Dobbs (which based on world reactions have shown that world leaders' reactions and populaces care about this and are demonstrating on both sides according to the article on 2022 abortion protests), let it be included here. If people see that Canada and Denmark changed borders but no one cared about it, don't include it. We of course have to have SOME quality control (like Depp v. Heard; this should not be here as it had no major impact), but including events which people IN GENERAL care about and have a notable impact on a country or the world should be a no-brainer. The extreme internationalness that some editors are enforcing is just plain wrong when it comes to events people globally care about. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Moreover, the lack of internationalness for Hurricane Ian is factually inaccurate. Ian hit Cuba as a category 1 hurricane and Florida as a category 4. This is CLEARLY international. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Once again I strongly agree with Invading Invader. For example, if Vladimir Putin expressed his intentions to cannibalise Dmitry Medvedev in a televised address (such as the one on 21 September announcing “partial” mobilisation), people would be interested even if it is domestic. 146.200.180.251 (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Celebrity/entertainer deaths in the lead
We recently decided to include deaths of significant world leaders as part of article leads for the years. I think it is a great idea and it helps create better article leads.
However, I think including entertainers in the lead is a slippery slope. My concern is that it may cause unnecessary back and forth editing for fans of an entertainer to try to get their person mentioned in the introduction if we have it become a standard. Most of the time there is debate on whether or not to include a celebrity in the deaths section to begin with because we've had difficulty establishing what makes a celebrity notable with many entertainers who have won at least one of the four major EGOT awards and gold medal athletes being excluded.
A person being the longtime leader of a major global power is a little bit easier to establish significance than entertainers and there's far less debate in doing so.
Feel free to discuss, I'm not going to fight what conclusion we come to, but I thought I'd share my concern with all of you. PaulRKil (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. I noticed this too. 146.200.180.251 (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think that entertainers in lead should be on a case by case. Every figure is going to have a few unique differentiators, and only on a case by case can we decide. I think that it all comes down to impact. Were they listened to or watched around the world? Like world leaders, I'd limit it to three in the lead. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think if there was a large debate in the talk section to even include them in the deaths section as we've seen with Coolio and (from what I can recall) Meat Loaf, we may not want them in the lead. I think Sidney Poitier and Olivia Newton-John are fine entries for now. PaulRKil (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include deaths of very internationally notable entertainers in the lead. For this year: Poitier, Meat Loaf, ON-J & Godard. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think if there was a large debate in the talk section to even include them in the deaths section as we've seen with Coolio and (from what I can recall) Meat Loaf, we may not want them in the lead. I think Sidney Poitier and Olivia Newton-John are fine entries for now. PaulRKil (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
NASA's DART on collage
should we add NASA's DART to the collage, it's one of the biggest scientific things of this year, and we don't have a scientific thing on this year's collage, in my opinion is should replace the 2022 Kazakh unrest cuz it's the least notable thing on the collage. I'm just asking what's your opinion guys 4me689 (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm neutral on both tbh. Either one works. Since Kazakhstan didn't end up like Tiananmen Square or a protest that caused changed, I'm full in for replacing it if something is more notable. 03:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC) InvadingInvader (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'd argue you should include the 2022 World Cup in Qatar in the collage (when the tournament is finished). 146.200.180.251 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, add the World Cup in December. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes I agree with @Jim Michael 2:, as for the picture to replace, ideally we want eight pictures on the collage. So what picture should we replace. 4me689 (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude DART & the assassination of Shinzo Abe. Reinstate the Kazakh unrest. I've explained why I disagree with DART being in the article at all, so obviously I disagree with it being in the collage. Shinzo Abe ceased to be the Prime Minister of Japan in 2020, so his assassination didn't have much effect on Japan or its gov. The Kazakh unrest killed over 200 people & caused the replacement of its prime minister. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes I agree with @Jim Michael 2:, as for the picture to replace, ideally we want eight pictures on the collage. So what picture should we replace. 4me689 (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, add the World Cup in December. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
This has been brought up again, so what is the current consensus? Should this petty border dispute over the tiny, barren, remote, uninhabited Hans Island - which is covered by snow & ice for most of the year - be included? I obviously think not. Border disputes are commonplace, and this is about as minor as they can be - no military action, international sanctions etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude, for obvious reasons. 146.200.180.251 (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Include, it's very rare to have border dispute solved, we already had a consensus to include this earlier. And again this was in North America where it's normally peaceful. 4me689 (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's not rare & consensus can change. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude even though it is a peculiarity and certainly interesting, the land is uninhabited thus the decision does not effect the citizenship of anyone who lives there because nobody does. Compare this today's annexations by Russia or if, hypothetically speaking, a decision was made in regard to the Kuril Islands Dispute where 21000 people live.
- However, if a consensus was reached to include, it doesn't break my leg or pick my pockets but I think only border changes that actually effect the population that inhabits said land or has an incredibly high resource value should be included in main year articles. PaulRKil (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, if thousands of people lived on Hans Island and/or there ware gold mines there, it'd be a different matter - as it would if there'd been an armed conflict over it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would agree. My preferred metric is a combination of event substance (what actually happened and its impact) as well as how many people care about it, the latter of which is measured using press coverage. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm with Jim Michael on this one and would say Exclude. Slots should be dedicated to events which people around the world care about, and measuring by press coverage, this isn't a big deal to most people. It's more niche towards geography nerds, and closer to WP:TRIVIA than an actual event. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Let's see what the previous people in the original discussion think, @The Voivodeship King:, @JeffUK:, and @Dunutubble: what is your thoughts right now. 4me689 (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would say include for the reasons given in the last discussion as well as because it resulted in Canada and Denmark both having two land neighbours. Hans Island will likely become an important shipping stop in the future as climate change melts the ice caps covering much of the Northwest Passage. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 19:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- That's one trivial thing & one speculative thing. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Eh, that is more speculation than anything else in regards to its potential to be a shipping stop. There are many nations that come to similar peaceful agreements regarding land sovereignty all the time as is the case of enclaves shared between India and Bangladesh and those are barely noteworthy in spite of those regions being populated. PaulRKil (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- With all due respect, that could fall under WP:CRYSTAL. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would say include for the reasons given in the last discussion as well as because it resulted in Canada and Denmark both having two land neighbours. Hans Island will likely become an important shipping stop in the future as climate change melts the ice caps covering much of the Northwest Passage. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 19:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@Jim Michael 2 @4me689 So recently, I've learned that India's highest court has ruled that abortion is legal for all Indian women up to 24 weeks into abortion, and a Kenyan court has ruled abortion to be a constitutional right. This recent development has proposed me to suggest this, since Jim and I are in a very heated debate over the inclusion of landmark domestic events like when the US high court ruled against abortion.
Since these are domestic events which establish international trends both in favor of and against abortion, I suggest that we include a snippet in the lead as either its own separate paragraph or as a single sentence which summarizes that multiple large countries are ruling in favor or against abortion access. This single sentence would summarize events without having to put them into the mainspace and note an international trend appealing to both domestic and international audiences. It would also address Jim Michael's fear of overflowing this article with events that are too domestic.
The proposed sentence will look a little something like this:
The year has also seen abortion becoming an increasingly more contentious and addressed issue, with courts in India and Kenya ruling the practice as legal while the United States removed constitutional protections to abortion, sparking nationwide protests which leaked into some European countries.
Abortion is an international issue, and a growing one by the day, but I can understand if too many of these events would flood the article. The lead sentence would solve this; it addresses the internationalness of the issue while keeping things as concise as possible and not inserting domestic rulings on the practice into their own events.
Jim, I know you're not the biggest fan of domestic events, but the practice is increasingly becoming a more international issue with every court decision. Hopefully, a sentence will adequately cover abortion around the world, including the US, without flooding the article with more domestic events. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Exclude. Abortion I think isn't quite as contentious outside America, it's mostly just the Republican Party cherrypicking issues to discuss. In India and Kenya it seems like they just decided to make their own rulings to end any confusion, there hasn't been anything of much notability in either country. 146.200.180.251 (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Exclude due to there being no evidence of a connection between countries' changes/clarifications of laws. If most of the world were moving the same direction regarding abortion laws, there'd be a good case for including it. However, Kenya & India are moving towards allowing it, whereas Poland & the US are moving against it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)