Talk:2022

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

2022 COVID-19 protests in China (Result: borderline inclusion)

These are domestic, with only small solidarity protests in several other countries. The partial gov concessions are domestic. Even if you include the 2022 Ürümqi fire in the death toll, it's still low. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that most other protests would be domestic, but I think this would be one that should be included in the main international page. Protests in China are generally rare, and ones that succeed to any degree are remarkable. Exclusion of widely-covered events for the sole reason of being domestic and ignoring everything other detail isn't a good approach when countries, especially the world's most populous ones, spur international media coverage. Jim has generally more permissive of events which cause a major impact, a position which I personally share; this is one which has ultimately led to the CCP ceding to protestors' demands. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The 2022 Kazakh unrest is included because international forces took part & it resulted in the gov resigning. Its death toll was over 200. None of that is true of the Chinese protests. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

To respond to both your reply to me and Wjfox2005: Whatever the notability criteria is, unless it's biased to specifically censor China, these protests should be included. Jim, look at things relatively to not this year alone or other protests but also the history of a country or its size. A country like China, which has had zero wide-scale protests aside from this one and the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests/massacre, should see its biggest protests covered. In addition, some of the most notable protests ever don't always result in regime change or mass death; see the American March on Washington and the Indian Salt March. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion guidelines & I aren't biased. We don't include things due to them being unusual. Likewise due to them having a lot of media coverage; if we did, we'd include celebrity weddings. These aren't among the most notable protests of all time, nor are they anywhere near as notable as the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. They also aren't the world's most notable protests of this year. Things aren't inherently more important due to them happening in the world's most populous country; similar arguments could be used to include various events in Russia because it's the largest country & in the US because it's the most powerful. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Equal weight regardless of country is a bad philosophy to undergo. And comparison to the most extreme events, or anomalies, doesn’t necessarily help your case. Take into account how rare an event is, or how rare the end result is, instead of just saying “it’s domestic and it’s not Tiananmen Square therefore it’s gone”. Don’t just weigh anomalies. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not the size, power or population of a country that's important when judging the notability of protests. The size & duration of the protests, the number of deaths caused, their internationality & changes in government as a result of them are what matters. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Why only that? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Because they're the important factors. What else would be? The size/power/population of the city/country they take place in? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a balancing act between coverage and substance which does and should define notability for the purposes of this article, and the size of the country plus the size of the country. The country does matter, Jim. I know you hate to see that, but the country it takes place in does matter. And especially if it's a successful protest happening in the censorship capital of the world. Your arguments for the exclusion of events are comparable to "ad-hominem" reasons for exclusion; just because something happened in one country and wasn't the 1917 Russian Revolution doesn't mean it should be excluded. As stated previously, the main year article has to balance BOTH coverage and substance. This is an event which may fall slightly short when judging on substance alone but has gained much more media coverage than any other protest, likely because that protests of this level practically never happen in China. By only looking at event substance, we exclude what readers care about and we fail to put WP:READERs and their opinions on what they care about first. It's neither the position nor purpose of Wikipedia to dictate what people should care about (further information: WP:POINT). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm generally a big proponent of adding more China related items to main year articles but I'd have to say exclude. It is no different than the myriad of other protests against COVID measures that have been happening in virtually every country over the last 2 years, regardless of whether or not protests in China are rare or not. I think that the Canadian trucker protests were more impactful, but we have excluded those on this article as well. PaulRKil (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the Canada convoy protest is significantly more notable, involving far more vehicles. It caused far more disruption & cost far more to the economy. It's by far this year's most notable COVID-related protest. It has some internationality, including blockades of some crossings on the Canada–United States border & inspiring similar, smaller protests in other countries. As they were primarily domestic, I agree with them being excluded. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that both are domestic in substance, but internationally impactful enough, more so Canada's truckers than China's students. I would not oppose the inclusion of both, but if only one of the two had to go on, Canada would be the one. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's difficult to justify including the China protests when the Canadian ones aren't here. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

What if we be a little bit more inclusive now, and around maybe March 2023 (ideally when most of the fans and more hardline inclusionists are gone), we can conduct more complete reviews on events and deaths? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

We needn't wait 3 months. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Why not? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Because it'd be an unnecessary delay. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Include. Given the prominent status/role played by China throughout the pandemic, and the rarity of protests like this in such a hardline country, I think on balance it's okay to include this. It's a notable milestone in the Covid crisis, and signifies that the world as a whole is finally moving on from it. Of course, Covid is still ongoing, and we'll be dealing with it for years (perhaps forever) but the fact that a country like China is now ending its Zero Covid policy is notable. I think it's wrong to exclude things purely for being domestic, it's sometimes more nuanced than that, and there are shades of grey. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Millions of people have COVID; it's far from over. Many countries have changed their COVID policies. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

None as big as China, which previously had among the most restrictive COVID policies prior to the concessions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Bob McGrath (Result: exclusion)

Is Bob McGrath notable enough to be included? I don't think he is ? 2601:204:CF81:EC80:1005:75E5:73F:3960 (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Exclude. Sesame Street is certainly an internationally notable show, but none of the main human performers are even memorable to Americans like me with the sole exception of Mr. Hooper. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Exclude because he has no international notability. There are far too many fans adding domestic figures & far too few regulars to remove them all. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and this is not helped by the profoundly mistaken inclusion of Robbie Coltrane. McGrath’s notability is even less so, and should accordingly be relegated to Year In Topic like other such domestic actor. TheScrubby (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no case for including McGrath. I can't think of a way to encourage more people to become regulars on main year articles without likely being accused of canvassing. Making an exception for Coltrane basically because many people here are fans of him has made it difficult to argue against people who want to include domestic entertainers. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Generally, my idea is to keep main year articles as collections of the most defining or notable events regardless of whether they're domestic, but giving preference to international events. Loosening our standards by just a bit makes both sides equally satisfied. I'm concerned about the Events section being a little bit too short and that the standards are too rigid. I think it's easier for me to support the exclusion of more domestic figures than more domestic events since deaths themselves, with way fewer exceptions than domestic events, only truly impact the person who died and their family. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Opening the door to domestic events would mean including domestic disasters, battles, attacks, crimes, protests, elections & referendums, as well as events related to entertainment, sport & business. Doing so in relation to births & deaths would mean including a large number of people who most of the world haven't heard of, who haven't even worked outside their home country. That'd include sportspeople, politicians, entertainers & famous-for-being-famous people. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't that give the chance for people to learn more about people, though? People can work mostly inside their home country and be internationally notable. Mahatma Ghandi and MLK Jr are perfect examples; they only truly worked in British India and the US respectively, but they've done innumerable justices for the world even though neither of them held official political office in their respective nations. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

You're saying we should add a load of domestic figures to main year articles so readers can unexpectedly find out about people who shouldn't be here? Main year articles are rarely read from start to finish; they're referred to. If people want to know about a particular country's domestic figures, they'd read the relevant subarticles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should add a load of domestic figures. Domestic figures with widely provable international recognition is a yes. Domestic figures who have only been remotely heard of internationally, that's where we agree on exclusion. The article feels just a bit too small at the moment. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Which domestic figures with widely provable international recognition died this year? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

MLK Jr won the Nobel Peace Prize for his social activism, he was internationaly. recognized.

And Ghandi was influential in india's history as well.

We're not talking about them when it comes to notability. 2601:204:CF81:EC80:391F:3C35:48EF:F3D4 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

They're internationally notable, but the large majority of notable people are domestic. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Nobel Prizes? (Result: no change/status quo)

Not a question about this article specifically but I could find nowhere else to enquire — why are Nobel Prizes listed on year articles? What’s so notable about them that they’re given such special treatment? They’re awards given by independent, private, non-governmental organisations. Why not list this year’s Oscars or Emmys in their own section as well?

Is there an RfC which approved this at some point in the project’s history? Asperthrow (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that main year articles greatly inflate the importance of Nobels. They're the only awards that are included. They have their own section, giving the impression that they're the most important thing about each year! They should be in a single entry in events, if included at all. They've been discussed, but I don't believe that there's been an RfC about them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

They are listed because they represent the pinnacle of human achievement in their respective fields for a given year and are therefore highly notable. Oscars and Emmys are more like trivia and aren't comparable. The Nobels have been discussed before, extensively. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Very much. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You're all sure they warrant their own section, rather than an entry in Events? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yep. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm on the Neutral side when it comes to this. I don't think people care, but they are important. So I'm stuck. If y'all want to start an RFC on WikiProject years to help convince me, by all means please do. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you think they should have a separate section? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

They definitely shouldn't have their own section IMHO. That's implying that achievements in the chosen subjects of chemistry and literature etc. are somehow better than winning "pinnacle" awards in other areas of life including mathematics, other academic subjects, not to mention music, sport, humanitarian work etc. It's unbalanced to single out the Nobel prizes in this way.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree - is a Nobel in Literature universally considered to be significantly more important than all other literary awards? It's also strongly implying that awarding Nobels is the most important event of the year. Would anyone honestly say that they were the biggest, most important event of 2022 - or any year?! Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• The Oscars and Emmys are not suitable because they are American rather than global. For example, to win an Oscar a movie has to be shown in Los Angeles. The other problem is that hundreds of them are distributed every year -- about 24 Oscars and so many Emmys that it's hard to count them all. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

None of the film & TV awards are important enough for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC on the bankruptcy of FTX (Result: borderline inclusion)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There have been no changes in a few days and although there were some arguments for it to be excluded there is a clear consensus for the topic to be included. Note: this is not a WP:SNOW close. Gusfriend (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

---

The initial discussion on the inclusion of the FTX collapse has led to no consensus. The main question is: Should the Bankruptcy of FTX, be included, pursuant to the options below? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Include. I've stated my opinion previously, but I'll save the need for people to scroll up. CNN, Business Insider, and the India Times, among other sources in the media, have referred to FTX's collapse, once one of the most trusted cryptocurrency exchanges in the world, as the "Lehman Brothers" or "Enron" Moment for Cryptocurrency. Millions of people, from middle class crypto traders in Southeast Asia to Finance Firms in New York City have lost money due to FTX's collapse, from a small sliver of their portfolio to a large chunk of their holdings. WIRED magazine highlights that many cryptocurrency traders lost much of their fortune upon the collapse of FTX, with some traders across the world (such as the lead example provided by WIRED) losing 97% of his assets; Bloomberg has also highlighted that many across the world have seen their assets locked out of. As seen in The Guardian, members of the British Parliament were briefed that many institutional investors had lost millions due to the collapse. In the US, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is joining increasing calls to regulate cryptocurrency (see Coindesk and CBS News). This is about as international as it gets, and whatever this article's inclusion standards are, it should meet it unless it's specifically prejudiced against the international industry that is the cryptocurrency industry. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support InvadingInvader's arguments overall. It's not just because of the direct impact on the crypto world, it affected quite a lot of markets and the savings of millions of people. Sam Bankman-Fried was a fairly notable (even if fraudulent) business figure, with considerable media coverage. But I do understand it might not be that massive to warrant inclusion in the 2022 article itself, perhaps 2020s in economic history instead? FelipeFritschF (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Include. Cryptocurrencies have gained far more importance in recent years, and this is clearly a landmark moment in their development, so the FTX collapse seems notable enough for inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Include. I wish you were joking but it seems you're not, InvadingInvader. This is a blatantly notable event, possibly one of the most notables of the year and certainly the most notable in the field of exchanges & markets. Personally, I'm surprised anyone would dispute this. -The Gnome (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude because it's nowhere near important enough. Trading (by companies or individuals) in extremely high-risk, pseudocurrencies is choosing to involve themselves in a fringe product that is obviously likely to rapidly incur huge losses, which will likely include bankruptcy. It's nothing like as important or mainstream as food & water supply, inflation or mortgages, which affect a high proportion of the population. Adding this would wedge open the door for many more business events to be added. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that an exchange that was recently valued at $32 billion getting wiped out is a usual and "not important" event? The exchange still owes over $3.5 billion to its creditors, on top of that. Where else this year or in the previous last years did we witness such an implosion? -The Gnome (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say it's usual, but being unusual doesn't grant notability. Crypto is on the fringe of finance. The vast majority of people are unaffected by & unaware of this bankruptcy. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This is FALSE. International news media (see my original comment in this RFC and the previous discussion's comments for sources) are covering the drama and economic fallout of FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried. My phone has nearly all the major news sources on it, and I'm getting notification after notification about SBF and FTX and stuff that started with this chain of events. And my phone has (either through their own apps or Apple News) Bloomberg, BBC, CNBC, Fox News, CNN, CBS, France24, Al Jazeera, the Atlantic, NYTimes, CNET, SCMP, and too many others to mention. When I log on to European and Asian sources, FTX is covered across the WORLD. These sources not only cover what's happening with SBF himself, but also, as I've cited in the previous discussion, stories of people (like Southeast Asia) who have LOST ALMOST ALL THEIR MONEY TO THIS COLLAPSE. There's no denying that this is less than notable unless you're using WP:IDONTLIKEIT or some other justification which intends to subliminally (or overtly for that matter) downplay a notable international industry. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This argument is more akin to WP:IDONTLIKEIT with regards to cryptocurrency rather than attempting to deny notability. It's your choice IRL whether to invest in it or not. But that doesn't mean it should not garner a sentence or two on this article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Try me mentioning it to people who don't follow financial news. They won't know what you're talking about & won't care. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this honestly an argument? Almost all the people I know are completely clueless about marine biology. And I mean they do not follow it at all!! Talk to them about marine biology and they won't know what you're talking about and won't care. So, what do you suggest we do with marine biology articles in Wikipedia? And don't get me started on topology. -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

We have very few articles in main year articles that are about marine biology or topology. I disagree with a move towards including more business stories. There should be subarticles such as 2022 in business and finance for that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude per Jim Michael. Nothing else to add. It is by far not the most important business news this year. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Exactly - in comparison to the massive increase in inflation, it's a minnow of a story. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Nope. Nothing "massive" about the price increase, nor anything exceptional comparatively. The price index rose 5.87% between 2021 and 2022. This means that the purchasing power of $1 in 2021 would equal the purchasing power of $1.06 in 2022, a difference of six cents. Where's the "mass" you're talking about? Only in loaded opinions unsupported by arithmetic. -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Many countries have far higher inflation than that this year - the highest for decades - significantly affecting many millions of people. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

True but this does not mean the FTX collapse is not worth including. Having the FTX collapse in the article does not affect the importance or the notability of the inflationary phenomena. You are essentially arguing that, alhtough the FTX collapse has indeed being reported in many sources, the event is not as important as another event. That's not a valid argument; this is not a list of the single most important events in every field. It's an article about a year's main events; note the plural. -The Gnome (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)-The Gnome (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Btw, in the previous discussion there was a majority consensus to exclude the inclusion of this news item. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• There wasn't a consensus to include. A narrow majority doesn't create a consensus. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
• It was no consensus; 3v3. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• You are bringing to the discussion false information, _-_Alsor. Every RfC is a serious affair. We're supposed to treat them more seriously than that.-The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• The FTX collapse was quite evidently a notable event, _-_Alsor. Perhaps it was "not the most important business news this year" but, on the basis of the voluminous evidence available (the sources provided are a small sample), it certainly is a notable one. If you're of the opinion that we offer the most important and notable event, that opinion would be wrong. -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you accept that it's nowhere near as important as inflation? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Both are important and notable events of the year and both deserve space in the year's article. Inflation is a phenomenon affecting more people, so it's more important. But that does not affect the FTX event's own notability. -The Gnome (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Include.(Summoned by bot) And frankly, this looks pretty close to an issue that should have been resolved as WP:SNOW: there is clear WP:WEIGHT in reliable sources, with many financial sector experts and industry press clearly identifying this as by far the largest Ponzi scheme in history and likening it (disfavorably no less) to the collapse of Enron, in terms of scope, malfeasance, and impact. Not only do we have nothing less than thousands of reliable sources covering the ongoing and likely future impacts on the investment sector and the near-future viability of cryptocurrency, among numerous other knock-on effects, but also the response of regulators and legislatures across the globe. This is not even a remotely close call: this is easily one of the most WP:DUE topics for inclusion in this particular article. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

This whole discussion is built on this company having been legitimate & hit by unexpected, unjustified misfortune. If the whole thing's a Ponzi scheme & the company was never legitimate, that'd put it in a very different light. That'd make this company's collapse an organised crime event rather than a legitimate business event. I take more notice of financial news than most people do, yet I've only heard of FTX since it went bankrupt last month. The vast majority of people haven't heard of this company; it lasted 3 years & had about 300 employees. Enron lasted 16 years & had over 20,000 employees. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"This whole discussion is built on this company having been legitimate & hit by unexpected, unjustified misfortune."

I don't see how this discussion is or should be about such a supposed perception. I certainly don't see anyone predicating their include !vote above as being in any way connected with whether or not the company is sympathetic. In fact, I don't see anyone even suggesting they are sympathetic. Nor nefarious for that matter. Rather the !votes general seem (and in any event mine certainly is) predicated on the only obvious outcome of the actual policy test here; WP:WEIGHT.

"If the whole thing's a Ponzi scheme & the company was never legitimate, that'd put it in a very different light. That'd make this company's collapse an organised crime event rather than a legitimate business event."

"Ponzi scheme" is exactly the framing that numerous primary and secondary sources are using to describe the venture. But again, this isn't even relevant to the policy test for inclusion here: we really don't care what your own analysis of the facts, or the subjective importance you ascribe the events or particulars. What matters is the weight and objective notability, as judged by coverage in WP:reliable sources. And this is easily one of the most reported upon events of the year, with dimensions that are likely to have lasting impacts in relevant markets, and well beyond the concerns of just crypto enthusiasts.

You seem to think (apparently without having stopped to check the breadth and depth of coverage on this event) that this is some sort of niche interest story, only of concern to such crypto boosters. But it's really not: this is getting coverage in nightly news, in long-form investigative journalism, in newspapers, in industry press, in the general press, on talk shows, all over social media; numerous regulatory probes are underway in numerous countries; there are ongoing congressional hearings. I'm not sure if you follow the financial news (or even the news) as above the norm as you think if you never heard about this company until a month ago, because it had a huge profile even before the colossal crash at the end: the cryptocurrency itself was broadly promoted by celebrities through traditional media channels and online: that's part of why the story is so big.

I'm sorry, but pretty much every word of your objection immediately above and your own !vote further up ("...because it's nowhere near important enough. Trading (by companies or individuals) in extremely high-risk, pseudocurrencies is choosing to involve themselves in a fringe product that is obviously likely to rapidly incur huge losses, which will likely include bankruptcy. It's nothing like as important or mainstream as food & water supply, inflation or mortgages, which affect a high proportion of the population.") are 100% WP:original research: again, we just don't judge these things on the subjective, idiosyncratic value judgments of our individual editors as to why a given topic is or is not important enough to warrant coverage. On any article. Whether you think the people who invested in this product were rubes who should have seen it coming is not at all of value in making a policy-based decision on whether to include the story in this article. Nor is your personal call on how inherently bad the scheme was, in the grand scheme of things. What is relevant is that this is a major financial and legal event, with many dimensions being covered by voluminous discussion in countless sources meeting our WP:RS standard. It's as simple as that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This bankruptcy is a niche story about the failure of a dubious company whose business was ultra high-risk trading of a fringe financial product.

You're the first person in this thread to mention that the bankruptcy of FTX was caused by criminality, which is significantly different to a legitimate business unexpectedly failing due to rapidly worsening economic conditions.

You're saying that this story is being discussed by the mainstream media & ordinary people to a similar extent as the sharp increase in inflation? Millions of ordinary people are talking to their families, friends, colleagues, neighbours etc. about inflation. Would you honestly claim that millions of shop assistants, couriers, waiters, bartenders, farmers, builders, labourers, mechanics, plumbers, nurses, secretaries & cleaners are also talking about FTX's bankruptcy? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know how to be more clear about this: the analysis, perspective, deductions, suspicions, outlooks, forecasts, reflections, judgments, views, conclusions, and even outright facts known to our editors are all of absolutely no consequence to a determination of whether or not content is WP:DUE for purposes of this project, no matter how well reasoned we think those determinations are. Please see WP:Original research, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT. What you or I or any other editor thinks about the answer to your posited question, it is absolutely irrelevant to the content determination.

So I could absolutely agree with you about the relative importance of this topic versus that on a personal level, and I would still have to oppose your position because we just don't judge inclusion on that sort of criteria. And for good reason: if we were to try to determine what content was due for inclusion in our content based on personal idiosyncratic views, work on virtually every article would creak to a halt as everyone argued the inherent value and WP:TRUTH of their own subjective views. That is why Wikipedia adopted the objective WEIGHT standard for these circumstances instead. I know you're relatively new to the project, and I'm not looking to be curt or dismissive, but this really is Wikipedia 101, bedrock policy based on our oldest principles of community consensus. Arguing for inclusion or omission based on your own first principles is expressly how we do not handle questions of inclusion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Jim Michael 2, your arguments are no doubt well intentioned and honest but, unfortunately, have no merit in such a discussion. This is about what's worth having in this encyclopaedia. A person in ten years time looking up this article, about the year 2022's main events, and not finding any mention of the FTX collapse would be badly served by Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral, but leaning towards exclusion as per Alsoriano and Jim Michael. TheScrubby (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
• Include I think that FTX's bankruptcy is much more than a niche story as it can and will seriously affect other crypto exchanges and the way they do their business. While it may be true that most of the general population isn't discussing FTX and its demise, many people are interested or at least familiar with cryptocurrencies, especially bitcoin.Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
• Include (Summoned by bot), this is a relatively niche topic (though so is all banking and investment), but within the finance sector it is a major event.it … will seriously affect other crypto exchanges and the way they do their business … … many people are interested or at least familiar with cryptocurrencies. Though likely to be much more cautious about them now. Pincrete (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Banking & investment are mainstream. Most people have heard of crypto, but wouldn't consider having anything to do with it and aren't interested in a crypto company going bust. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• See [NYT article]. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
• Again: the myriad of sources reporting on the FTX collapse decides the issue. Whether people are generally more interested in other topics does not rob the FTX issue of its own notability. -The Gnome (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Weak include - I think it is not in the top 10 but exceeds the WP:WEIGHT of many other items here, plus it has real impacts and is not just a hot scandal. Niche interests of finance and tech are particularly affected. Whether there is much wider impact would be something that will be seen in 2023 but for now it seems big enough to include. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment : Including in the article the obviously (quite) notable event about the FTX collapse does not mean excluding the 2022 phenomenon of inflation, evident in many countries around the world. It is important to have this clarified. -The Gnome (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree...OSE shouldn't be used when it comes to inclusion on this page. I see that argument A LOT on this page. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:OSE is about comparing things of similar notability. Saying that this is far less important than the large increase in inflation is relevant. If someone said that a rugby, cricket, baseball or tennis tournament should be included, I'd say it shouldn't because it's nowhere near as notable as the FIFA World Cup. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily the most productive idea to compare everything to the most notable event of the year sector-wise. An example is comparing an Israeli-Palestinian escalation to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

They should be compared. None of this year's events of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict are included in this article because they're not important enough. The increase in violence there this spring & summer wasn't unusual & was much less than last year's. Many events of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine are included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Why should they be compared? Plus, the main year articles do seem to be a tad bit small. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Because they're events in the same category; in this case, armed conflicts. Main year articles are only for very internationally notable events & people.

Small compared to what? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's project about articles on years makes it explicit that there is never the case whereby editors choose one or even "just a few events" for inclusion. It is sufficient to have the FTX assessed as one of the most notable events of 2022 to include it, along with other notable events. -The Gnome (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying there should be a quota of events of each topic. I disagree that FTX's bankruptcy is one of the most notable events of the year. It's pushing it to say that it's one of the most notable financial stories of the year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's absolutely not THE MOST notable event of the whole year (that title probably would go Ukraine), but it's notable enough for inclusion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
• If the most notable event of 2022 in the field of finance & economics was the inflationary phenomenon, Jim Michael 2, care to offer the second most notable event? -The Gnome (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The sharp decline in Russia's economy due to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as well as international sanctions & international businesses pulling out in response to it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Would you say FTX is in the Top 5? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 08:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the top 5 business/finance stories of 2022, but certainly not one of the top 5 stories of the year overall - probably not top 100. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• If we count ongoing or long-lasting major events each as one big event each (like Ukraine, Inflation, the World Cup, the UK Government crisis), FTX would definitely be top 100. Most of the top 100 would be notable Russian-Ukrainian attacks and strikes, roughly simultaneous interest rate hikes across many central banks, the numerous events composing of Queen Elizabeth’s funeral, and stuff like that. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Several deaths of celebrities are in also in the top 100 stories of the year, as are several elections, several disasters, several mass murders, several protests/riots & many sports events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the fields of currencies or finance. -The Gnome (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't saying they are. I was replying to II's comments about the top 100 events of the year, which is relevant when deciding what to include in a main year article. Being the most important, second-most important etc. in its category/field doesn't make it automatically important enough. If it did, we'd have a quota for dozens of fields, some of them fairly trivial. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• The first ever significant set-back in the realm of crypto-currencies, Jim Michael 2, is not among the five most significant 2022 events in Economics and Finance?!? You can't be serious. As to your latest argument, you're using events from irrelevant categories (what does Queen Elizabeths funeral have to do with the financial markets?!) and you're crowding the field by treating items separately though they're part of one single event as far as the realm of finance is concerned: the war in Ukraine begat inflation and interest rate rises). The abundance of sources verifying the universal notability of the FTX collapse refutes all arguments against its inclusion in the year's round up. -The Gnome (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I said perhaps it's one of the top 5, because it depends how you're measuring. Are the declines in the Russian & Ukrainian economies part of the war or different stories? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

There is one main event and then there are the direct consequences of it. We can have it all as one event, or we can have it as two, one being the war itself, and the other its consequences. In any case, the war in the Ukraine is most certainly the major event of 2022, in all fields, but, in the realm of Economics in general or Financial Markets in particular, the FTX collapse is as significant as the appearance itself of cryptocurrencies. -The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

If this bankruptcy is as significant (or anywhere near as significant) as the appearance of cryptocurrencies, then a great deal of info relating to it needs to be added to cryptocurrency, including to its lead. Neither FTX nor its bankruptcy are mentioned in that article at all. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Then let's mention the bankruptcy both there and on this article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

They resulted from the war and are closely tied enough to the war. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• Include per InvadingInvader. The The FTX collapse is a notable event. Nemov (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Closure request

As of a few minutes ago relative to the publishing of this note, I've put in a closure request at Wikipedia:Closure requests due to a relatively very quick consensus developing above. Some editors, as mentioned in closing comment, have suggested that this is a case in which WP:SNOW applies. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Collage images (Result: all original proposals rejected)

I think the collage isn't the best. It doesn't really summarize the most well known moments of the year well. I think there are a few things that we should change:

• Winter Olympics should be replaced with FIFA Word Cup 2022. A lot of people weren't even aware that the winter olympics happened.
• The Kazakh protest should be replaced with the Iran protests. I think we all know which one got/has gotten more attention.
• The Afghan earthquake should be replaced with the Peru coup attempt.
• The Sri Lanka protests should be replaced with protests against the Dobbs v. Jackson decision.
• Abe's assassination should be replaced with Liz Truss' resignation speech
• I also think there could be a better photo used for the Ukraine War TRJ2008 (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

For the most part I agree. I have some concerns, though:

1. Abe is more important.

2. A better photo could be used for the Ukrainian war.

3. Rediscuss Dobbs v. Jackson in an RFC if you want. There are quite a few editors who are extremely opposed to Dobbs being removed :(I'm personally more on the include side, but definitely not in collage).

Anyways, just my thoughts. Otherwise, I like your idea. Thanks for suggesting! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you really think that the resignation of Liz Truss is more notorious than the assassination of Abe? And more important the demonstrations over a court decision with a much smaller impact/interest globally than the protests that brought down the HoS and HoG of Sri Lanka? I would agree to replace the Kazah protests with the Iran protests, but not with the rest you propose (without questioning your good faith in this proposal, of course). _-_Alsor (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The main reason i think of putting truss' resignation is because i think it kinda falls into the "Collapse of the UK narrative. I think watching UK news this year has just felt like the entire country is collapsing, and since the UK is a global power i think it fits. On dobbs i think because of the amount of people who visit America just to get an abortion, it has more global impact than the Sri Lanka protests. Not to say the Sri Lanka protests aren't important, but I think more people are affected by the dobbs decision. TRJ2008 (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

None of the UK events are international enough. If by 'collapsing' you mean economically, many countries are in worse financial difficulties. The D v J protests were domestic & had no effect, which are two reasons that they're not in the article, let alone important enough for the collage. The 2022 Sri Lankan protests resulted in the government resigning & being replaced. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Winter Olympics definitely need to be replaced with FIFA though. Especially after yesterday TRJ2008 (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The 2022 Kazakh unrest is far more notable than the Mahsa Amini protests, even though the latter has lasted far longer & received far more media coverage. Coup attempts aren't important enough to be in collages. Domestic protests shouldn't be in collages, especially when they didn't change anything. Nothing involving Truss is important enough for the collage. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose all proposals as per Alsoriano and Jim Michael, although if there’s space I’d certainly prioritise the Mahsa Amini protests over Dobbs v. Jackson, which is easily the least notable of all the 2022 protests mentioned. TheScrubby (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The collage can only include things that are in the article. None of the Iranian protests are, because they're primarily domestic. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

That's actually false. There is an entry on Mahsa Amini already in the month of September. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think 'protests' work for a lead image at all. In almost all cases, photos of indistinguishable people in a crowd really add no information to an article. Unless an image is particularly iconic like Tank Man or the fall of the statue of Saddam etc. JeffUK (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Please remove the image of the Kazakh protest to reduce the cluttering. Deb (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Mahsa Amini protests (Result: included in the article, but not on the collage)

These protests were domestic in their early days, but became international when they spread outside Iran & international sanctions were imposed on Iran due to the their gov's response to the protests. Should they be in the article? If so, should they be in the collage? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Include in the article, neutral (lean exclude) in the collage. The ongoing actions of both the Iranian Government and the ongoing reactions internationally make the Iranian situation the most notable protest of 2022, edging out even Kazakhstan's unrest. Protests have erupted not only across the Islamic Republic but across the world; I myself ran into one on Market Street in San Francisco. I'm usually in favor of including notable large protests which garner international coverage, especially those against authoritarian governments, and this more than exceeds that threshold. That being said, JeffUK makes a good point on images; unless there is a "tank man" photo for a protest, it's difficult to justify inclusion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

These have gained the most media coverage & have the highest death toll of all this year's protests, but the 2022 Kazakh unrest & 2022 Sri Lankan protests are each more notable because they led to their governments being replaced. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

We can include all of them then. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Hong Kong domestic events (Result: exclusion)

I would like to request for an event or moment to be added. I showed it to you:

• 1 March – New Subscriber Identification Module (SIM Card) require real-name registration by the government.
• 2 March - The first time that Hong Kong recorded more than 50,000 COVID-19 infections in one day.

There it is, this statement contains sources from other websites and it is written in full sentences. So, I requested you to accept this request for addition of event. — 2600:1010:B117:9432:F821:D0D5:5F65:1AAA (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done because those are regional events which are for 2022 in Hong Kong. This is a main year article that's for international events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Gilbert Gottfried (Result: excluded as per previous discussions on Gottfried)

Gilbert Gottfried should be added to deaths section Apr 12 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.201.41 (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done because he's not internationally notable enough - see FAQ & archives. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Terry Hall (Result: exclusion)

British musician and singer Terry Hall died on 18th December: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Hall_(singer) 86.1.160.100 (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Is he internationally notable enough to include? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Michael 2 - Rated Mid-Importance by WikiProject Reggae, which to me would suggest that the answer to that question is "yes". casualdejekyll 19:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Project ratings don't indicate the subject's level of international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done casualdejekyll 19:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be far more appropriate to have a discussion on his inclusion before arbitrarily including him. TheScrubby (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Does Terry Hall have the substantial international notability for inclusion on the main yearly pages? TheScrubby (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

He's one of many examples of musicians who don't have significant individual international notability, but whose bands do. How do we measure their level of contribution to their bands? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

In this case, even his bands arguably doesn't have substantial international notability - the most notable is The Specials, and while they did have some international chart success, their success and popularity was by and large localised to the UK. They also won no major international musical awards. I'd honestly lean towards Exclude in this case. TheScrubby (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Are there any other musicians currently in this article who you think shouldn't be, or any that aren't currently in it that you think should be? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

He was too localized in his chart success, but Google Trends data shows (prior to his death) he had European followings. Substance seems on the lower end, so I would say Borderline Exclude with the evidence so far InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Nov and Dec deaths

Several of the people in the November & December subsections of Deaths have importance tags on them. Which of those people should stay & which should be removed? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to all of them being removed. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not familiar with many of the people tagged but I would argue that Colonel Joseph Kittinger should be included. He took part in both Project Manhigh and Project Excelsior, the latter of which he held the record for highest skydive (102,800ft) for over 50 years and still holds the record for the longest freefall. Excelsior was used to help test the multi-stage parachute, something still in use to this day. For his efforts he was indicted into the National Aviation Hall of Fame and even has a park named after him. CaptainGalaxy 21:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Do those things give him substantial international notability? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The records he set are international records that even the Soviets were trying to beat. The parachutes he tested are still in use today although modified from his initial design. If it helps he was also the first person to perform a solo crossing of the Atlantic Ocean in a gas balloon. CaptainGalaxy 02:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

This might not be a case of major international influence, but this should meet our standards when it comes to substance. Niche doesn't always mean not notable. I would second CaptainGalaxy and suggest Include. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

i12 Katong (Result: exclusion)

There is an request for an event to be added:

• “23 June – i12 Katong shopping mall is officially reopened by Keppel Land after nearly 2 years of renovation.”

It is a notable event moment. — 12.171.253.138 (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done because it's a domestic event for 2022 in Singapore. This article is for international events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

This wouldn't even meet the notability criteria for that. It's just a mall. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Malls are renovated every year, it's not at all notable. Unless this particular mall is notable for another reason it should be excluded. FireInMe (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI, It's since been removed from 2022 in Singapore. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Pelé in lead? (Result: inclusion)

Should Pelé (who died today) be added in the paragraph that goes "The year included many prominent deaths of notable figures, including world leaders Shinzo Abe, Mikhail Gorbachev, Queen Elizabeth II, and Jiang Zemin, as well as entertainers Sidney Poitier, Olivia Newton-John, Jean-Luc Godard, Angela Lansbury, and Jerry Lee Lewis"? And if there would be a consensus to his inclusion, where should he be added? Would it be between Jiang Zemin and Sidney Poitier, or after Jerry Lee Lewis? Vida0007 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Very strong include. Global sporting legend. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Speedy inclusion of Pele is needed. 2601:249:8E00:420:7D41:8C6B:2BFE:2201 (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Include strongly for Pele after Jerry Lee Lewis. Additionally, given the news coming out, Pope Benedict XVI should also be Included once there is confirmation of his passing. PaulRKil (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't know that Benedict will die this month. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Include definitely, and after Jerry Lee Lewis, as he is not a politician or entertainer, so should be separate from both, a notable passing, one of the greatest athletes of all time. AlexJacques95 (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Include. By far one of the most recognisable figures in the world, perhaps the second most notable death of the year. PolPot1975 (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how you could measure if his notability is higher than that of Jiang Zemin & Shinzo Abe, but like them he should certainly be in the lead & have a photo. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

100% Strong Include. Someone doesn't need to be a Soccer (Football) fan to know who Pelé was, I don't follow soccer and I know he's famous in the sport. I'm surprised this is a topic of discussion. FireInMe (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion and him being removed once is because there's a hidden note in the lead saying not to add anyone else to it without talkpage consensus. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Michael 2 I see, thanks for letting me know. FireInMe (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

While I'm firmly in favour of Pelé in the lead, I'd also propose including Shane Warne alongside Pelé - the other most internationally notable sportsperson to die in 2022 by some distance. TheScrubby (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd oppose Warne in the lead. Cricket is an international sport, but not on the same level as soccer/football. Non-soccer fans knew the name Pelé. I don't think non-cricket fans would recogonize Warne. Nemov (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Going off of InvadingInvader's sports criteria list, cricket and association football are rightly listed in the top tier, along with tennis and golf. The most notable and accomplished figures from this tier deserve to make the lead, in this case Pelé and Warne as soccer and cricket icons respectively. TheScrubby (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I also oppose cricket as a top tier sport. Please see my comment there. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Change into past tense

I would like to establish consensus about this article to be re-written into the past tense no earlier than 00:00 UTC-12 when the last parts of the world (Baker Island etc.) transition. Before this point in time, 2022 will not yet have passed in its entirety and it thus doesn't make sense to write about as passed while still being partially current. If you’re waiting to update, I would recommend you to google “Time Baker Island” to see when to do so.--Marginataen (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC) :Support. We’ve been doing this for a while on year pages and if it’s not already codified, let’s do so here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Support. PolPot1975 (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, because year articles are routinely written in the present tense. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Changing vote to Neutral. Either works as long as we're consistent. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Is is correct that events are and should be written in the present tense. I was referring to the main tense of the article – "2022 is" vs. "2022 was" for instance Marginataen (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The leads of previous main year articles are in the past tense, but the rest of those articles are in the present tense. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Does Edgar Savisaar deserve a photo? (Result: not done; interim leaders of nations are not prioritised for images)

He was certainly notable, but I'm not sure if he needs a photo here. Requesting feedback and consensus. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

No, because he briefly led a country which is small by size, population & power. Some far more notable people have died this month. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

to say that he doesn't deserve it for having served a small country is consciously discriminatory. Being the first prime minister of a country at a turbulent time such as the transition to an independent state is more than notorious. He is certainly one of Estonia's most important politicians. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Some countries are obviously much more important than others, which substantially affects their leaders' notability. Those are relevant facts, not discrimination. He held the position for five months. Several far more notable people died in Dec; he's not even the most notable politician. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

By this rule, we would only include –exclusively– politicians from the USA, Germany, France or China. And that's exactly what I thought you wanted to avoid, so I'm surprised, frankly. He's undoubtedly the most important politician to have died in December (bearing in mind that Benedict XVI is more than just a "Vatican politician"). _-_Alsor (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

(Former) heads of state/gov of any country are routinely included in Births & Deaths. We're talking about whose photos to include. Photos are for the most notable only. In the case of politicians, they're rightly disproportionately from powerful countries. How is he more notable than Adolfas Slezevicius, who was leader of his country for nearly 3 years? We don't include a politician's photo for every month. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

As I have emphasized before, Saavisar led the interim government of Estonia (albeit for a few months) at a time when the Estonian Supreme Council declared independence in 1991 from Soviet Union. The difference with Šleževičiu is that, the latter, ruled Lithuania once it was already independent and no extraordinary events beyond the ordinary management of executive power and its consequences. Nor did I say that we have to have one photo of a politician for every month. (Oh, and I know perfectly well how Year in Topic works, we have collaborated many times here...). _-_Alsor (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Did Savisaar do anything particularly important as PM? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead the country during its transition to a post-Soviet sovereign state. And this is no small feat. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

In any case, if all taged entries are removed, I don't think there will be enough room for a third photo. And, if there's still room, what alternative do you propose? _-_Alsor (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

As a reminder to participants, this isn't about the inclusion of him as an entry. This is about him having a photo. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. Edgar Savisaar belongs to this article here, leading a newly independent country is NOT a small feat. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

No-one's disputing him being in Deaths. The discussion is about whether or not he should have a photo. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

My preference is Vivienne Westwood over Edgar Savisaar, as her fashion is more notable worldwide, but this really depends on the importance tag and if there's a space to do so. I'm OK with the inclusion depending on these factors. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

His photo has been removed & replaced with Barbara Walters. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree on this one. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - not because he led a country that's small in size, population and power, but because he was a caretaker leader. We don't include photos of heads of government/state who only served on an interim basis, even if they served during times of significant change. Have no issue with his inclusion otherwise. TheScrubby (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI in lead? (Result: inclusion)

Should he be added on the lead section? Thingofme (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I knew the lead section would lead to a slippery slope. Since we're here already, he should. PolPot1975 (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

There are too many notable individuals died in 2022 compared to other years like Elizabeth, Pele, Shinzo Abe... Thingofme (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because he's certainly one of the most notable people to have died this year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. He’s a former world leader so he fits in that first sentence InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Replace 2022 Winter Olympics with 2022 FIFA World Cup in collage

A lot of persons were not even aware that the Winter Olympics happened. Meanwhile, World Cup was watch by billions of people, I think it makes more sense to have Qatar 2022 over the winter olympics TRJ2008 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Support. They received a lot more press coverage and notability among the populace. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Support The World Cup took up a lot of discourse due to its controversies talked about throughout a significant part of the year and had a lot of eyes on the matches. CaptainGalaxy 17:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Support. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Support - It makes sense considering the viewership numbers for each. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Barbara Walters (Result: no consensus for inclusion, continued in RFC)

Let's talk this out first before we escalate into an edit war. I'm convinced she belongs here. As one of the most notable journalists in television history, while her work itself was more limited to within the United States, she is far too notable with her accomplishments to be limited to US articles only. She is comparable to Malcom X, someone who has only worked within the US but become an internationally notable figure, when speaking within the world of television and journalism, a trailblazer as seen across the world. Her exclusion is an insult to the history of journalism and reporting across the world. You can be an important person in world history while staying within your country. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm certain she doesn't belong here. WP is far too Americentric & she was certainly a domestic figure. Thousands of notable people have worked in multiple countries. A similar figure from any other country wouldn't have a chance of being included. The media in some other countries reported her death as they have done thousands of domestic figures who are known outside their countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

How can Wikipedia be americentric when you’re advocating for the removal of a soviet transitional prime minister’s image? She’s too domestically notable to be only included on American related articles and deserves at least a mention here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a separate issue of a photo rather than inclusion of an entry & I've given my reasons in the relevant section.

Being very domestically notable doesn't make a person internationally notable or eligible to be here. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Whatever the threshold is, unless it says something along the lines of “Barbara Walters is a poo poo head and shouldn’t be listed here”, Walters would meet it. FireInMe lists her accomplishments….what other deceased journalist has had a career like Walters? Don’t forget her work on the View and her absolutely murdering the glass ceiling. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

She's very domestically notable. No-one's disputing that she's rightfully on 2022 deaths in the United States. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Relatively speaking, no one visits that article anyway. Inclusion on there doesn’t matter as much as here. This is the year article which people visit. I think it’s reasonable to assume that people expect her here as well, especially considering her international record. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It has hundreds of views each day. She doesn't have much of an international record; the large majority of her career was domestic. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Relative to this article with nearly 400K views, inclusion on the “B list” of sorts is an insult to a person of her caliber. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Are there many other journalists whom you think should be on main year articles? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope. I agree that we can't include every single journalist, but Walters is among the most famous and notable of her kind. She's routinely described as among the greats in journalism, and sources from large publishers to smaller blogs put her at the same level or just below Woodward and Pullitzer (source: [1], [2], [3]). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Joseph Pulitzer was a politician & newspaper publisher, so it's not reasonable to compare him to journalists. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

He was still a significant figure in journalism though. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Upon what do you base this assessment, Jim? Kire1975 (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I've explained well. What part of what I wrote are you questioning? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Include If she was a domestic figure she wouldn't have interviewed the likes of Indira Gandhi, Egypt's Anwar Al Sadat, Israel's Menachem Begin, the Shah of Iran, Cuba's Fidel Castro, Britain's Margaret Thatcher, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Russia's Boris Yeltsin, and Muammar Gaddafi. A journalist/interviewer needs to be notable to achieve such interviews. FireInMe (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Many (primarily) domestic journalists have interviewed foreign political leaders. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It's tough to get an interview with a leader of a foreign country. It's not "many". FireInMe (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It is many journalists who've done so. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Prove it then. Name me a single deceased journalist who has interviewed as many foreign leaders and officials than Barbara Walters. Name me someone more notable. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Jim, name all the deceased journalists who have had a career better than Walters who would belong here then. You can’t be serious. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Those living & dead journalists who are on a similar or higher level of notability include Christiane Amanpour, Tom Brokaw, Walter Cronkite, Christopher Hitchens, Dan Rather & Louis Theroux. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

That isn't too many; she's among the most notable worldwide then of all journalists. Niche does not mean not notable. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Very few journalists are important enough for main year articles. The same is true of many occupations. We're not aiming to represent dozens of different occupations. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

As established in the FTX RFC, Niche doesn’t mean not notable. You still haven’t named a more notable deceased journalist who has died. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

You say "many" but you don't name any. Kire1975 (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Christiane Amanpour has interviewed many foreign leaders. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That's only one. Name me some more recently died journalists who had as storied a career like Walters. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is whether or not they died recently relevant? We don't have quotas. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Borderline Include. She's not that well known worldwide, but there's clearly definite contributions to her field. Managing to interview many world leaders can't be ignored. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Exclude Agree with Jim Michael 2, it was part of her job as an American journalist to interview people outside the US. That doesn't mean she was very well known internationally. Nemov (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, she's a household name in the US & no-one's disputing her great domestic notability. Millions of people outside the US have heard of her, but she's not well-known internationally outside the field of journalism. Few non-journalists outside the US could talk about her for a minute. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It's fascinating reading the comments on this page about which dead people are worthy of inclusion on a list of famous people who died this year. I get that it's a balancing act, and we need to include a subset of important/notable people who died. With the key questions being "Important to whom? Why are they notable? Who cares?". For argument's sake let's take Queen Elizabeth II, arguably the most notable person on the planet. I assume even she was unknown in some parts of the world ... arguably those places may not have access to wikipedia but that's an assumption. On the other hand an obscure Lithuanian (or Ethiopian or Venezuelan or Australian) poet would have less international appeal or recognition or impact ... but it seems we see a lot of them listed on here. What constitutes notoriety or importance? International recognition? Tenure? Impact? Is a social media influencer with several million followers more worthy of mention when they die than a regional politician in a non-Western nation who lifted thousands of people out of poverty over decades in office? Or is an actress who entertained millions of people for 7 years in the 1960s any more/less important than an actress who entertained tens of millions of people for 2 years in the 2010s? I've noticed a clamp-down on notable deaths listed in the yearly summary over the past couple of years. Maybe it's because we want to include more astrophysicists and poets and darts players at the expense of (say) notable female journalists. Or maybe there's a quota on the number of deaths listed per year ... and a desire to spread the notables amongst all continents. Frankly I just want to know which famous people have died ... but I acknowledge the bigger question is "who is famous, and to whom?" 2001:8003:2032:B400:F06A:262C:8677:AD0D (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The large majority of notable people aren't internationally notable enough to be in main year articles. Obscure people shouldn't be here. Social media influencers are very unlikely to be included. When people were notable isn't important; what matters is how internationally notable they are. We don't have quotas. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This is also the one I didn't know anything about until recently, and she's only mostly well known domestically. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude as per Jim Michael and Nemov. TheScrubby (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral - She was mostly into American news coverage, but she did do international news, too. GoodDay (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Include, in my point of view, she was the most notable journalist from the late 70s to early 90s. For folks who grew up in that time, her presence is comparable to what Cronkite was to the prior generation. I know I will probably get pushback for that comparison, but I believe she left a substantial enough impact in broadcasting to warrant inclusion. PaulRKil (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you accept that to be only true in regard to the US? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm an American and I acknowledge she's famous in the US. I wouldn't go as far as to compare her to Cronkite, but this article has an international context. I doubt people in India or Brazil would have a reason to know about her. Nemov (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts : And I don't have any stake in this. Journalism figures are hard to measure in my view because well..... it's an Americentric field. The Peabody award is American. So are Emmys. And these are the only two major recognizable awards that I can think of that measures notability for Journalists.

There are other international awards such as the Elizabeth Neuffer Memorial Prize, but it was established just 10 years ago. We won't be able to tell if that makes sense.

The Emphasis on " international awards " as a measure for notability in my view puts a crimp in fields such as Journalism, Literature, because it's going to be very very hard to determine notability, and that's the truth.

Besides, how about people such as Anna Wintour ? She technically has no awards whatsoever.

Just want to say that I think it’s highly inappropriate that in spite of the fact that there is clearly no consensus in favour of her inclusion, she has been added with an image. Even if she were to be included at the end, the fact that it’s stirred up this level of debate and controversy means that an image should not be considered at all. Images are reserved for the most notable deaths of the month - those whose inclusions are without any question. TheScrubby (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Include She was like an American Sir David Frost. She interviewed figures like the illusive Katharine Hepburn, who rarely gave interviews aside from the Australian Clive James and Dick Cavett. She was the first American female news anchor for a major American network. You're leaving out a large gap of American history as a result if leaving her off of here. I argue here non-American nations are being given an unfair advantage over Americans, of which I see hundreds of unfamiliar names compared to just one familiar American name which has been excluded due to being "too domestic" despite America being one of the most powerful and influential nations in the world. Is a 5-1-3 vote good enough for inclusion? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus isn’t just about head count of votes. You’re arguing for the inclusion of a domestic figure based on achievements which are relevant to the US alone, when the bar for inclusion here is international notability. “despite America being one of the most powerful and influential nations in the world” is pure Americentrism. All of the arguments in favour of inclusion that you’ve made demonstrates her notability - her domestic notability, for which we have 2022 in the United States. TheScrubby (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No one uses that page, nor I. The second thing, America has like 300 million people and is the largest English speaking country (and we're using the English Wikipedia page). It's a different playstyle, preference based on countries versus that of population/global influence, I'll admit that much. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

We have Year in Country pages for a reason, and if you feel that they are underdeveloped, then you’re free to contribute to them and help make them more presentable. This is the main international yearly page. It doesn’t matter what the population size of a country is, we are not and will never preference or enable systemic bias in favour of one country, or the figures of one country. Americentrism will never happen again on these international yearly pages. TheScrubby (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll wait for the feedback of others if that's fine with you. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

You can do what you like, but what you’re arguing for is Americentric bias on an international Year page, and essentially endorsing the inclusion of domestic figures from one country when their equivalent figures internationally wouldn’t get a look in. That is completely unacceptable, and a standard that you’ll find users here do not accept, and indeed has not accepted for years now. America is not the whole world. TheScrubby (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you please set protocol aside for this one occasion? If anyone's more suitable to set protocol aside it's for Barbra Walters. Swear I needn't to bother you again if you do agree on this one occasion. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jim Michael 2: put it best when he said “A similar figure from any other country wouldn't have a chance of being included. The media in some other countries reported her death as they have done thousands of domestic figures who are known outside their countries”. TheScrubby (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Many editors of main year articles only want one person added. I can't imagine Laura Kuenssberg, Trevor McDonald, Jeremy Paxman, Peter Snow or Kirsty Wark being included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

False; consensus CAN change to make things more americentric as you can see it. Odeally I would not prefer to be americentric, but consensus can change. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I seriously cannot imagine a circumstance where consensus changes in favour of systemic bias which sees domestic figures and events from one country being included while their international counterparts are scrutinised and removed. No one country - be it the United States or otherwise - should be treated differently, or given special treatment. It would be a travesty if we had one set of rules for figures and events from one country, and another for every other country in the world. TheScrubby (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I've decided to send this dispute to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I've decided to concede the dispute. Stand down. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

A major discussion is also taking place at WP:YEARS, concerning inclusion criteria in International Year pages. I reckon a criteria for inclusion, concerning the 'birth/death' sections, should be established. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a good idea. It's getting tiring watching the same debate over and over. Nemov (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Eduardo Romero (Result: inclusion)

he was an argentine golfer, he was one of the most famous Latin American golfers in the world, i'll be right here waiting for a an answer :) 2800:2181:5000:1E8:B5DD:2026:97EA:2847 (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

How important are his titles? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

he won over 80 professional tournaments around the world, including eight on the European Tour and five on the Champions Tour, with two senior majors; he also won over 50 times in South America and was a member of the Argentine team at the World Cup on 14 occasions. ShaggyAnimate (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

He's been added. After reviewing his accomplishments in the world of golf, from everywhere between South America and Europe, he's clearly a notable golfer even if a bit niche to those outside of it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Vivienne Westwood (Result: borderline inclusion)

I have noticed importance tag was removed and added again. In WP:ITN/C there's some serious discussions about adding her to the blurb. I feel like she should belong to this page, as she is very important to the world of punk fashion. MarioJump83 (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

ITN has different criteria to us. How internationally notable is she? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

A quick Google Trends check shows that she's notable internationally – she's quite popular in Japan (!). Here's some news articles from Malaysia and Indonesia. For me, it should be enough evidence that it is not really an Anglocentric event. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

International popularity doesn't prove international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

How does it not then, when in conjunction with substance? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Punk culture and the genre of punk rock is actually popular worldwide and influenced the modern rock genre we all know today. Vivienne Westwood is a significant part of this, and should be considered internationally notable as such. There's a substance in this, per InvadingInvader, and it cannot be ignored. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Punk is international but has never been worldwide & it's a subculture rather than mainstream. Also, how important is Westwood to it? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Punk isn't really that popular in Africa but it goes as far as Asia, including my country where it is seen as a nuisance, so I consider Punk to be worldwide. Punk used to be mainstream in the '70s and punk fashion of that time has Vivienne being a big part of this. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It's never been popular in Africa, so it's certainly not worldwide. Punk has always been proudly subcultural, so how can it be considered mainstream? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Support Inclusion per MarioJump InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Include. Not sure about the opening blurb, but she certainly deserves a mention in the Deaths section. A very notable and influential figure in fashion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

How internationally notable is she? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Not that notable. Well compared to people like Ralph Lauren. 2601:204:CF81:EC80:D48D:85F2:364D:A875 (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact that she is in the discussion for the ITN blurb, and a photo blurb in this, she may well be worthy of inclusion in the opening blurb. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

ITN's inclusion criteria are very different to ours and it's unlikely that they'll give her a blurb. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and the ITN blurb ended with a no consensus result. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude This is another person who is famous, but I wouldn't consider her internationally famous. Agree, with Jim Michael 2. Nemov (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Borderline inclusion based on her international influence on fashion. TheScrubby (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to replace 2022 Kazakh unrest with Mahsa Amini protests in collage (Result: not done)

What do you all think? More have been arrested during the Iran protests than the former, the Iran protests have gotten a lot more attention globally, and I think it's safe to say that what happens in Iran has much more influence on global affairs than Kazakhstan.

Also a minor suggestion for the collage as well: i think a better photo could be used for the Ukraine War, maybe a photo of a destroyed building or the aftermath of a Russian airstrike TRJ2008 (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The Kazakh unrest is far more notable because of its results. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree. The world seems to care more about Mahsa Amini more. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

We go by results, not popularity/publicity. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

We go by both results and publicity. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Support This event isn't just gained a lot of publicity. There are clear results - Iran is much more sidelined now and more aligned towards Russia in the world of global politics. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Iran has had poor relations with most countries for decades, but it's had good relations with Russia since Vladimir Putin came to power. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

For clarity and for easier vote counting, Support replacing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by clarity & vote counting? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It's for the person who eventually closes this discussion if it is. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose - the Kazakh protests directly led to a change of government, and far more consequential changes within Kazakhstan, whereas the same simply cannot be said for the Iranian protests. TheScrubby (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Anita Pointer (Result: borderline inclusion)

Does Anita Pointer deserve to be in the 2022 deaths list? just asking :) ShaggyAnimate (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

She's another example of a musician whose group has substantial international notability, but who has no individual international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we can let her on since she was the founder of the sisters. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

ok 👌 ShaggyAnimate (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude This is where I wouldn't stand on. Not well-known worldwide. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Reconsidered, I'm now in favor of borderline inclusion being a founding member of a well known group. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi ShaggyAnimate (talk) I have never heard of Anita Pointer. But she was one of The Pointer Sisters. That should be enough to warrant mention in 2022. Was she as on the money as Queen Elizabeth II? No way. Was she as hopelessly devoted as Olivia Newton John? Not at all. But the Pointer Sisters were so excited, they could not hide it. They did the Neutron Dance for goodness sake. OK so John, Paul George and Ringo were each successful as solo artists ... but gestalt theory reminds us the 4 mop tops were greater than the sum of their Liverpool parts, or something. Seriously though, The Pointer Sisters were BIG in the 1980s, and that should count for something. We may not know them as Anita, Bonnie, June and Ruth (except if you read the article on Wikipedia). But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be noted for their individual contribution when they die. I'm glad you said "OK" above. I just wonder why you care so much to ask the question in the first place, but not curious enough to find out who she is before you ask? Peace and Love.

It's a fair question & many editors don't know much about many of the people listed. Inclusion on main year articles requires substantial international notability & there's a lot of debate here about who to include. She's in a category that's quite often debated: musicians who don't have individual international notability, but whose groups do. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I think for me it depends on if she was dominant in the group, either as a founder or a signature member. A good comparison is John McVie to Fleetwood Mac, someone who only attained notability inside the group but was internationally seen as a core member, and widely so. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Are there any band members who are in this article who you think shouldn't be, or any that aren't whom you think should be? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked hard enough; throw me some suggestions if you don't mind. The big comparison seems to be Terry Hall...and it does seem like that he was a non notable member of a lot of groups. I think that if someone gets John McVie or greater levels of fame with a band which is at the very least a bit less famous than Fleetwood Mac, we'll include the person. Pointer did so with her sisters...but I don't see Terry Hall doing something like that with the bands he played with.

Perhaps another way to phrase it, using the Catholic Church, would be including a 43-day long pope (representing Pointer) over a 75-year long bishop of Chicago (representing Hall, and I know a 75-year long bishop realistically isn't possible but you get the point I'm trying to make). == InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't include domestic religious figures, but do include Pope John Paul I. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This conversation isn't about the Catholic Church; it's about Pointer. She was part of only one group but achieved international recognition for being part of it. Terry Hall was not notable with any one single group. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You raised the topic of clergy. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I used clergy as an example to help you think. Pointer is relative positionally to the Pope compared to Terry Hall, supposedly represented in my example as a 75-year long Bishop. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude She's lacking international or domestic notability as an individual artist. There are plenty of examples of band or group members who were famous on their own, but she's not on that list. I'm an American and didn't even know who it was until I realized she was a member of the music group. Nemov (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Nor I didn't know much either. She's not that well known to be honest, and I never heard of this name before. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

We've had discussions about this before, and it would be a terrible idea to exclude band members who were central to the success of the internationally notable groups they were in. If they weren't a core member/founding member/classic line-up member/etc., then it would be fair enough to consider exclusion. TheScrubby (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I can live with her being added as a borderline inclusion, given that she was a founder and central member of the internationally notable Pointer Sisters. TheScrubby (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Should I remove her from the 1948 article too? Kyu (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

A borderline inclusion applies to both year articles. So no need to do anything. TheScrubby (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible edit warring

Lately I've been seeing @Jim Michael 2 violate the 3RR by engaging in consistent removal of content by other editors, notably attempting to remove Barbara Walters, Kazuki Takahashi, insisting on the addition of importance tags for Walter and Westwood, etc. I've tried to notify Jim on his talk page of this, but this seems to have largely gone ignored.

The 3RR (view at WP:3RR) states that an editor may not undo any editor's work, in part or in whole, on any single page, more than three times within any 24 hour period, and 4th or more reverts just outside of the 24 hour period may also be considered a violation.

Can we all cool it down and please stop being so heated about this page's inclusion criteria? Year's already over anyhow. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't ignored it; the only edits I've made today in regard to Walters & Westwood are on this talk page. I haven't broken 3RR, or any other rule/guideline. You must know that it means no more than 3 edits in 24h regarding the same content rather than 3 edits to the same article. I haven't removed or tagged the same person or event more than 4 times during a week, let alone in a day. Different editors have added & removed various different events & people. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. 3RR says same or different content. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Even so, I don't think I've made more than 3 reverts to any page in 24 h. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The criteria don't change because the year has ended. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Please don't give too high of a bar for inclusion on the year article. It's exclusionary. I'm not really that inclusionist on year articles either by the way, as I would agree on some of your points, but just don't set it too high. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

And who determines the criteria? Can you show where the criteria is? Because it seems like you're just the one who came up with the criteria without it actually being official Wikipedia policy. FireInMe (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe that there's no official criteria for year articles. I suggest a RFC should be a way to go to make it definite. MarioJump83 (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. But, Jim Michael is so insistent upon said criteria I want to assume good faith that he got it from somewhere and not basing it on his personal made-up criteria then imposing it on others. FireInMe (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It's been formed through consensus during many discussions that have taken place over the years on many talk pages of main year articles & the Years project, although different editors have different interpretations of the specifics. We've tried many times to define the details, but we couldn't reach a consensus on that, especially in regard to entertainers & sportspeople. Deb is an admin & she removes more (primarily) domestic people from main year articles than anyone else does, so the idea that I'm the leader in doing so is clearly untrue. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

There should be a record of this WP:CONSENSUS somewhere. Do you have a link? Kire1975 (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus in regard to various things relating to this has been reached on the talk pages of various main year articles. The finer details haven't been, which is one of the reasons for the frequent disagreements. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

But, consensus can change. How can you enforce present-day consensus on people on August 7, 2099? Are you going to stipulate it in your will? FireInMe (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

There isn't a movement to change the consensus on anything major in regard to main year articles. Many fans (want to) add people/events. That's often accompanied by claims that they're very important - often in a double/triple/quadruple intersection &/or an obscure field - but most are excluded due to having little or no international notability. Many thousands of people are important to their fields. Main year articles need far more regular editors, but the large majority of editors who are new to main year articles merely want to add one person/event/disaster/crime/protest/law/sport/org/film/play/TV show/record/newspaper/website/business/celebrity wedding, then disappear whether they get their way or not. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems disingenuous to call people who support your degree of exclusion “regular editors” as it misrepresents ideas, establishes that to be a regular editor you have to support the currently overly exclusionary criteria, and implies an oligarchical form of ownership behavior. I’m a very regular editor here and I’m often on the inclusion side; I personally think that the article is too short and can benefit from widely recognized figures like Barbara Walters even if they’re mostly active domestically. The usage of the term “regular editors” to refer to people who think similarly to you seems to be along the same lines of Lenin when claimed to be the majority (Bolshevik) before the formal establishment of the USSR…before his rise to dictatorship, he was actually in the minority. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The classification of regular editor has nothing to do with politics, nor whether or not they agree with me; it means those who've regularly frequently edited main year articles in recent years. There's no cabal, let alone a leader; editors are welcome to join us. Like I said, very few want to; the large majority of editors of main year articles are here very briefly to add one person or (type of) thing. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe if you loosened the criteria you could be more convincing and welcoming. It's worth a shot. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Main year articles shouldn't become led by fans or pop culture. There are many sites who do that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You don’t seem to be letting too much in for pop culture though yourself, especially newer pop culture. It’s the other extreme, and both are bad. The middle road is best, but we’re presently at the other extreme. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of pop culture articles in WP & elsewhere. The vast majority of it is too trivial for main year articles. We include very few sports events & don't include any entertainment industry awards. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Why not include them if you're so insistent on them being part of the internationality criteria? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Events & people have to be important as well as international in order to be in main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Why only go on internationalism? And don't just respond with "because that's what we do", explain WHY we do it. Don't give me something along the lines of "because I said so". InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Because there are many year by country articles for domestic events & people. Main year articles have rightly long been for important international events & people only. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

This reply ignores my previous request to answer "why" and not "we do this"...it just points fingers at "year in" articles. And "international", as well as what makes something international, seems pretty arbitrary...the only consistency is taking the most restrictive approach possible in recent year articles. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It makes very good sense for most of the events & people who are in year by country/topic articles to not be in main year articles. Adding domestic stuff to main year articles would lower their quality. There's long been a consensus that main year articles be international. You want things to be added to main year articles due to them being important to their country &/or field, but those are reasons for them to be on the subarticles, not main. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why he'd tag Walters with importance inlines. PaulRKil (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Because she's primarily a domestic figure & main year articles are for internationally notable people & events. See the discussion above in regard to her. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Most people seem to not be in favor of both important and international as stringent as Jim enforces it. I remember that Jim was one of the leading arguers against the inclusion of Shinzo Abe's assassination under events and the FTX collapse at all. It's gotten to be slightly absurd with enforcing internationalness. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The bickering between you two needs to be pulled back. It's getting out of hand and a little WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's clear you both have a different POV and hashing it out over every disagreement isn't productive. Nemov (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Jim Michael was correct in his edits as there was, and has been no consensus in favour of the inclusion of the domestic journalist Barbara Walters, and it is outrageous that she has been included in spite of the lack of consensus with an image. Likewise, there’s also no consensus in favour of Takahashi. TheScrubby (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Kazuki Takahashi (Result: no consensus for inclusion)

Let's settle down on this, should he be included on 2022 deaths? His work is considered to be notable worldwide internationally in regards to trading card games, and it is a big part of our childhoods. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd say borderline include. Japanese culture, just like crypto, is niche, but based on Mario's comments and my brief investigations, he's notably important to the niche InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude - manga is popular internationally, but not worldwide. Trading cards are nowhere near important enough to grant someone inclusion on main year articles. He doesn't have anywhere near enough international notability for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

You said the same thing about FTX but that ended up being included. Through that, it’s established widely that niche doesn’t equal not notable. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Many thousands of people are important to their field. We don't have quotas. What's his international notability? His only significant award is an Inkpot Award; how can that be significant enough? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Not a Japanese culture fan, but creating Yu Gi Oh, among the most popular franchises/brands ever and the present Guinness world record holder for most popular trading card game, meets the notability criteria. You’re looking at formal awards only and not legacy, Jim. Look more. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The same could be said for the creators of many domestic franchises which are popular in other countries. Try mentioning him to people who aren't Japanese or fans of manga/anime.

Being a record holder for something trivial is nowhere near important enough. It's nothing like the notability of winning the most Academy Awards or for running a marathon in the fastest time. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

So being the creator of the most popular of a type of thing in the WORLD is not notable? You can't be serious Jim. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Not when it's trivial. Hundreds of people are the creator of the most popular something in the world. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's include all of them then. They didn't all die in 2022. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Why add the creators of the most popular of each thing to the Birth & Death sections of main year articles? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

They created something internationally notable. In terms of subcultures, the fandom of Japanese comics and cartoons is among the largest in the world. It's worldwide, and nearly every country except for North Korea (maybe) the Vatican City/Holy See has devout fans to the subculture. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You're sure that manga, anime etc. are very popular across Africa? You're sure that he's one of the top figures of that field? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure that Yu-Gi-Oh has popularity in Africa in parts of the world where people are fortunate enough to access the internet in the first place, and while Takahashi's name maybe not known, his creation is. His entry should include mentioning he was the creator of Yu-Gi-Oh. Don't forget that Africa doesn't just include the stereotype of poor countries but also more connected and sometimes more well-off nations like the North African Arabian countries (Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria), South Africa, and the more well-off areas of large African cities like Lagos, Dakar, Dar Es Salam, Rwanda, and Nairobi. Every inhabited continent has at least some anime fans and followers, and it's not too far of a stretch to say that Takahashi has at least one or two fans among the relatively few hundred Antarctica scientists stationed there. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Internationally and worldwide btw are practically synonyms. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

They're substantially different, because international means multiple countries whereas worldwide means all countries. For example, rugby is international but not worldwide; football is worldwide. We don't include any rugby tournaments on main year articles, but we include some football tournaments. Manga & anime are popular in some countries but not others. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Niche doesn't mean not notable, Jim. You're being too strict in your inclusion criteria. Not everything on this article has to be Pope Benedict. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude Some of these are tough, but this person isn't famous enough. The card game is notable, but it's far from a household name. I doubt many people actually know the name of the person who created it. Nemov (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, very few non-Japanese, non manga/anime fans would recognise his name. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Niche doesn't mean not notable. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I didn't know much about him either, nor people around me know him. I just happen to know his name after the death. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards borderline inclusion, but I'm okay with him not being included either. Anime/Manga, just like crypto, is niche if we're being real here. Anime/Manga is not that popular in India and Africa when compared to K-Pop, and K-Pop is also niche at a similar scale. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards exclusion because it doesn't sound like he's a really major figure in the context of manga/anime - I mean by comparison with others in the field - though obviously there is some international awareness of his work. The acid test would be if another figure known for similar work died during the year and there was debate about which of them was more important. I mean, like comparing David Bowie with Gerry Rafferty or something. Deb (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

They don't need to have died during the same year to be compared. Bowie died just over 5 years after Rafferty & I can't imagine anyone disputing that Bowie's notability is far higher. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

While I lean towards Neutral here, if Takahashi is included, it would call into question the exclusion of the authors of Doraemon, who are of comparable notability in roughly the same field. TheScrubby (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion regarding reforming the criteria on WikiProject Years talk

Hi guys; I thought I would inform you of an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years concerning changing the criteria for inclusion on main year articles. You can view it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Proposed reforms for Main Year article inclusion. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Tigray War (Result:)

Three events of the Tigray War have been added. The start of a temporary ceasefire, the resumption of combat & the end of the war. The latter may be important enough for here, but the other two aren't. Ceasefires starting & ending aren't unusual. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral on the first two, but definitely include for the third. TheScrubby (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to say include for all three. Because the Tigray War itself, to provide some context:

• Happened in Ethiopia, which is both an important regional actor in the Horn of Africa and the seat of the African Union's headquarters, which has had serious implications for both
• Has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in just 2 years (the most cited estimate seems to be around 385,000 to 600,000)
• Is the deadliest war involving Ethiopia since the Eritrean–Ethiopian War, and it's deadliest internal conflict since the Ethiopian Civil War

The peace treaty in November sort of speaks for itself. As for the other two, though:

• Before the ceasefire in March, the war was characterized by widespread violence and atrocities, and the period between March and August 2022 marked a huge decrease in that violence that was very uncharacteristic of the conflict up until then
• The war after the ceasefire collapsed in August led to (by some estimates) 100,000 deaths in just a few months

XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for this wall of text, I've just followed the events of this war pretty closely. I know ceasefires, in general, are made and broken pretty often, but I still thought (for the reasons I've listed here) it was important enough to include. XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't very international. It was a civil war with some Eritrean involvement. It was nowhere near as long, international or important as the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or Yemen. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

How do you judge "importance" or whether something is "international" enough in a case like this? If it involves UN Security Council Members? And a modern war killing over half a million people in just 2 years in highly unusual, and I think that on its own warrants inclusion of those events. XTheBedrockX (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The other 4 wars I mentioned involved far more countries. I don't doubt that it was an intense war with a high death toll, but it's only just about international enough for its start to be included in 2020 & its ending in this article. Anything other than that (ceasefires, battles, offensives, airstrikes, massacres etc.) is nowhere near important enough for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you define as "international enough" here. The United States was heavily involved in trying to negotiate an end to this war, and Iran, Turkey, the UAE and China are all alleged to have sold weapons to Ethiopia. The war had spillover effects with Sudan, and Ethiopia withdrawing troops from Somalia to Tigray might have indirectly led to al-Shabaab invading the country in 2022.

The reason I didn't chose to include any of above on this page is because I know this, on it's own, probably isn't notable enough to be on a main year page. But a 5-month ceasefire to the second deadliest war of the year after the one in Ukraine? I don't know, that seems pretty noteworthy to me. XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You must realise that it was far less international than the 4 wars I mentioned, each of which involved many countries fighting in them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of that. This doesn't explain why it wouldn't be significant enough to include. We're not talking about one famous person dying (who may or may not be internationally significant), we're talking about a war here, and a very deadly one at that. XTheBedrockX (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It does - it's nowhere near as international. If Eritrea hadn't fought in it, there'd be no chance of anything relating to it being in main year articles. The start of the War in Afghanistan - along with 9/11 which precipitated it - is defining of 2001. The start of the Iraq War is defining of 2003. The Arab Spring (including the start of the Syrian civil war as the most important part of it) is defining of 2011. No-one but Ethiopians & perhaps Eritreans would say that the Tigray War is defining of 2020. Ask a thousand people at random of any other nationalities to describe 2020 & it's highly unlikely that any of them would mention Tigray. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

1. We're talking about 2022, not 2020, please don't change the subject.
2. It's not productive to judge how important something is based on the opinions of hypothetical random people.

XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

2020 is very relevant, because it's the year that this war - which most people have never heard of - began. I've said that its start is rightly included in 2020 & its ending in 2022. Anything else relating to it is nowhere near important enough for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

This war has been reported on extensively by Western media outlets from the very beginning. You not knowing or caring personally is not the same thing as "most people have never heard of [this]." XTheBedrockX (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It received far less media coverage than the other four 21st c wars I mentioned. I didn't say I didn't know or care. I do, but the large majority of people don't. Try mentioning Tigray to people who aren't Ethiopian or Eritrean, don't have a geography degree & don't have an interest in military history. Most won't have a clue what Tigray is. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-Africans not knowing or caring is still not a good reason for these events to be excluded. XTheBedrockX (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Most Africans don't either. It was a civil war with only one other country fighting in it. You're the only editor who's indicated that they want the ceasefire's beginning & end to be in this article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The events are significant, independent of what public knowledge or opinion is. Would you also respond this way to major developments in a war happening in a European country? XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say the same if a war of a similar level of international notability were happening anywhere in the world. Main year articles don't usually include the beginnings & endings of temporary ceasefires even with much more internationally notable wars. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Philip Baker Hall (Result: exclusion)

Why is Philip Baker Hall not in the deaths list? I mean, hes in the 1931 article's births list so why not include him in the deaths list? ShaggyAnimate (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

He's a domestic figure, so he shouldn't be in 1931 or this article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

then why dont you remove him from the 1931 article? :/ ShaggyAnimate (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed him. Nemov (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

your welcome man :) ShaggyAnimate (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude due to insufficient international notability, as per Jim Michael. And I say this as somebody who greatly enjoyed Hall in everything I’ve seen him in, especially Curb Your Enthusiasm. TheScrubby (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead rephrase proposal (Result: not done)

Change this statement from this to:

"Many prominent figures died in 2022, including world leaders..."

to:

"Notably, many of these prominent figures and iconic people on each nation died in 2022, including that world leaders of..."

This is my edit request. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done because it's grammatically incorrect & iconic isn't neutral. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

How it the term "iconic," not neutral? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It's giving them strong praise. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. I would additionally recommend that the IP read WP:5P2; this encyclopedia is written in a neutral point of view. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Figures in question (Result: Sison excluded and the rest borderline inclusions)

These figures have had importance tags placed for some time now, and as far as I know there has been no actual discussion about whether or not they ought to be included. So we may as well get the ball rolling and get this resolved. Do the following figures have substantial international notability, or should they be excluded?

• Joseph Kittinger, United States Air Force officer
• Angelo Badalamenti, American composer
• Siniša Mihajlović, Serbian footballer and manager
• Jose Maria Sison, Filipino writer and activist (excluded)
• Sribhashyam Vijayasarathi, Indian writer, Sanskrit grammarian, and literary critic

As of now, consider myself Neutral for almost all, but exclude Sison. TheScrubby (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral on Kittinger, Badalamenti and Mihajlović. Exclude Sison and Vijayasarathi. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I tried to start a discussion on the tagged deaths last month. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems with that discussion, only Kittinger was talked about in any detail. Where do you stand on each of these five? TheScrubby (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Include on all four, but Neutral on Sison. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Alsoriano97 @Jim Michael 2 @TheScrubby Also, is there a reason of why Sison was voted excluded on this article, while the rest of them are in inclusion? How? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Sison has the least international notability of those listed in this section. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

In lead? (Result: retain/status quo for Lewis, and exclude from lead for Warne)

Shane Warne

Should Shane Warne be added to the lead of this page? Along with Pelé he is easily one of the two most notable sportspeople to die this year, and just as how Pelé is internationally regarded as an icon of association football, Warne is internationally regarded as an icon of cricket - and both soccer and cricket are in the top tier of most internationally notable and played sports. TheScrubby (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I understand why Warne is included in the article, but he's not even close to being the same level of fame or notoriety as Pelé. For the parts of the world that don't play Cricket no one would know who Warne is (I certainly had never heard of him). Nemov (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Warne may be the second-most notable sportsperson to have died last year, but he's not close to being as notable or well-known as Pelé. Warne is very well-known in Australia, and a substantial proportion of people in other cricketing countries have heard of him. In the rest of the world, few have. Pelé was world famous. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Jerry Lee Lewis

JLL has been removed & reinstated to the lead. His international popularity was fairly small & mostly in the UK & Canada. He's international enough for Deaths, but not the lead. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Retain - Lewis has rightly been included in the lead since his death, and I’m amazed that people are now trying to remove him. Hugely important figure in music history, and a major figure in the development of rock and roll. Indeed, Lewis was arguably the last surviving major rock star of the 1950s, and his substantial notability and influence was strongly felt among subsequent generations of musicians. Easily one of the most notable deaths of the year, especially in music. TheScrubby (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral on this one. He is obviously iconic but I’m not sure how deserving he is, and you can make equal arguments for both sides. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say in terms of musical figures, his was the most notable passing of 2022 - along with Olivia Newton-John, although she was also well known as an actress. TheScrubby (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I've gone back and forth on this, but Retain per TheScrubby. Lewis was a superstar in his era and very influential throughout the world of rock music. Nemov (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Fabián O'Neill (Result: exclusion)

can we add Fabián O'Neill to the deaths list? i feel like he's notable enough to be in here don't you think? La Orca Masorca (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

He isn't internationally notable enough. Thousands of notable people have done notable work in multiple countries, including sportspeople, entertainers, artists, scientists etc. Major accomplishments are needed to qualify for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards exclusion. No denying he's notable, but relatively so is the question. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Borderline Exclusion - Not really high profile enough to be mentioned here. Nemov (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude as per Jim Michael and Nemov. TheScrubby (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

RFC on the inclusion of Barbara Walters in Deaths (Result:)

Should Barbara Walters be included as an entry under the Deaths section? Continued from a previous discussion in which no consensus was reached. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude - There's no doubt that Walters is a famous American broadcaster. The year article represents the entire world and has a stricter barrier for inclusion. In this case, Walters isn't notable outside of the United States. She has received very little international coverage during her career. Walter's death is perfectly fine for inclusion at 2022 in the United States, but falls significantly short for this article. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude as per Nemov as well as my previous comments on the matter, which is that Walters was a predominately domestic journalist whose international counterparts (such as Angela Rippon and Jana Wendt) would not have been included, nor would discussions have gone on as long as they have had she been from any other country. The achievements cited by other users arguing for her inclusion in the previous discussion are relevant to the US, but are in no way an indicator of international notability, which in her case is insufficient for inclusion here. TheScrubby (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude due to a lack of international notability. Please drop the stick. We have more important things to do than waste weeks reviving this settled discussion. Many journalists have long careers & interview important people. There's no chance that we'd include an equivalent journalist from any other country. Imagine you're not American, you've only vaguely heard of her & you'd struggle to talk about her for 30 seconds. Now tell me honestly if you'd be persistently pushing for her to be in an international article. Main year articles will never have a quota for domestic figures. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude - she's listed in the United States' 2022 page, which should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude per above arguments, not of international significance. Ortizesp (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Include. I've already debated this in the previous discussion (which I recommend the closer also read and consider), but I have some additional subsequent thoughts. A criteria that excludes Walters is a bad criteria, plain and simple. The above comments about excluding Americentrism are borderline WP:POINT, and while Americentrism exists, the exclusion of Walters only promotes Anti-Americanism, the exclusion of people just for being American, which itself is worse if implemented across years. Walters is an obvious inclusion for being the woman who became the Mahatma Ghandi and Barack Obama of both television journalism and female representation within it. Just because she was American doesn't mean she should be excluded, and save for maybe North Korea and its KCNA, no female TV journalist anywhere would not cite Walters as an inspiration or at least someone who helped her to where she is today. Some commenters have also suggested that coverage doesn't equal notability; this is a case where much of the coverage of the death was American but her influence was felt far throughout the world. Across the world, we credit her for not just punching the glass ceiling but nuking it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Her having been American is nothing to do with why we're against her being included. The criteria were formed years before she died. You're greatly overstating her international influence. You portray her as having been at the top of her field, but her international notability is well below that of Christiane Amanpour. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sez who? Despite being British-Iranian, I'm pretty sure Amanpour is much less well known here in the UK. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Amanpour is far more international & often broadcasts in both countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there is zero grounds for any accusation of “anti-Americanism” (even now I’m fairly certain that if you look at the yearly page, Americans are the most represented), what we’re against is Americentrism, and we’re against having one set of standards for Americans, and another for everybody else. People opposing the inclusion of Walters do so because she lacks substantial international notability, not because of the country she’s from - if anything the country she’s from is giving her an unfair advantage that she would otherwise lack. Like Jim said, you’re overstating her international notability and significance, nor do you address the fact that her international counterparts would not only not be included, but would also not be the subject of a lengthy debate like with this. TheScrubby (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Include: I am at a loss. It seems there is some surmising that Walters was not internationally known. This has got to be a joke. I surmise some have not read the abundant sources. Walters interviewed "rulers, royalty, and entertainers" like the Shah of Iran, Boris Yeltsin, traveling to Cuba to interview Fidel Castro (1977), that aired on Cuban television, copied in several languages, and shown all over the world, Margaret Thatcher, Chinese Premier Jiang Zemin, Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin (together in 1977) Moammar Qadaffi (Libya), and Hugo Chávez President of Venezuela, Syria's Bashar al-Assad, Shaw Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to name a few. Her interview with Sean Connery has gone viral since her death. Don't forget Monica Lewinsky and Hillary Clinton. She won a Peabody Award for her interviews with Christopher Reeve. In 1990 Walters was inducted into the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences’ Hall of Fame "for being acknowledged worldwide as one of television’s most respected interviewers and journalists,”. If Walters wasn't internationally known why would her obituary be in the Japan Times, the BBC, Foreignpolicy.com Even on Aljazeera. There are many more, so what would be the real reason for the omission? -- Otr500 (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You’re confusing “internationally known” with “international notability”, and the latter is the bar for inclusion on the main yearly pages. Furthermore, we don’t use media coverage and obituaries as grounds for inclusion here (as has been consensus on these yearly pages for some time now), as they do not demonstrate international notability. The awards you cite, the Peabody and the induction into the hall of fame are domestic and relevant only to the US. TheScrubby (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Millions of people outside the US are aware of her, which is why the international media covered her death (which is also true of hundreds of domestic figures) but few know much about her because she's primarily a domestic figure. Amanpour is far more international, but most people don't know much about her. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, @Otr500 Looking to the current list of people who qualify to be placed as an entry in the deaths section, there is no doubt that Barbara Walters should be included. Her contributions and impact to the world and notoriety to the world far outweigh many of the people who are listed - not belittling their contributions in any way of course, which were still very significant. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

What was Walters’ substantial international notability, or major achievements & awards outside of her home country? TheScrubby (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment: because of a developing consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years on removing the deaths section altogether, this RFC may soon become obsolete. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We're nowhere near reaching a consensus to change things in that regard. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I said “developing”, not “developed”. Read the entire comment before jumping to conclusions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree, there's a long way to go before any outside discussion yields results. It is irrelevant to this RfC. Nemov (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude on the basis of not meeting the current inclusion criteria (international notability), however my proposal in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years would result in including her death as the notable event of 30th December. Early days on that one though. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Even if we overhaul the year articles to a system like you propose (which I am not in favour of; I’m not in favour of treating dandruff with decapitation), I seriously doubt that the death from natural causes/old age of a journalist predominately domestic to the United States was the most internationally notable event of the 30th of December 2022. TheScrubby (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I kind of doubt that too, but there is no other event noted for 30th December currently. Anyone would be free to propose a more internationally notable event. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your plan, as well as any which involves quotas of any type. You said on WP:YEARS that under your plan, Walters would be included, but because of Pope Benedict XVI's death, wouldn't be had she died a day later. Likewise, because of Pelé's death, had she died a day earlier. The importance of anything doesn't depend on what else happened on the same day, so we shouldn't represent years as though it does. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment Is there any written guidance currently on criteria for death entries?—Bagumba (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

We do have criteria that’s posted in the FAQs section, though they are specifically for political and sports figures. In general however, it has been established over recent years that substantial international notability is the criteria for figures in general - rather than international media coverage, or the number of fans people have outside their own country. We have Year in Country pages for domestic events and figures - those that lack substantial international notability and are mainly notable and significant within their own country. We also repudiate any systemic bias in favour or against figures and events from any one particular country; we don’t have one set of standards for one country and another for all others, and we wouldn’t include a figure or event if it’s international equivalent is excluded. TheScrubby (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2022/FAQ looks specific to 2022. Is there any other general guidance, say at a WikiProject level? —Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Include, at first I was leaning to vote for excluding, but then I decided to read more about her and realized how important she was for the world of journalism, especially for the female journalists. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral Still not sure, of if this should be included on this main year article. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Include I'm not seeing evidence that this notion of "international notability" is a standard practice. It seems to overly discount that the United States accounts for a large part of the world's English-speaking population, and perhaps overblows the significance of being known instead in a few small countries, perhaps even non-English speaking. Let's not also discount gender diversity, and perhaps 50% or so of our readers, and Walters being a pioneer for women in her field.—Bagumba (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Substantial international notability is the bar for inclusion on main year articles. We shouldn't over-represent the Anglosphere. We don't have quotas & don't practise tokenism or positive discrimination. Amanpour is significantly more internationally notable yet isn't in 1958. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Substantial international notability is the bar for inclusion on main year articles: Is there any written guidance as such, or past discussions showing this consensus? And what about underrepresenting women? —Bagumba (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

There's a consensus spread across many discussions & it makes sense.

Women aren't discriminated against on main year articles. The reason that the large majority of people in the Births & Deaths sections are male is that the large majority of notable people (domestic or international) are male. The large majority of scientists, filmmakers & sportspeople are male; each of those occupations produce a high number of internationally notable people. Very few internationally notable people are from any of the female-dominated occupations. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Any links to said discussions would be appreciated. And perhaps we should look for ways to increase the representation of women, not just focus only on the number of man-made country borders a person is known. —Bagumba (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussions are on various talk pages of main year articles.

If you mean 'positive' discrimination, quotas or tokenism, we won't be doing anything like that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

As Jim Michael said, there is no one specific discussion but instead a serious of discussions since early 2021 on the main yearly Talk pages which has established that substantial international notability is the bar for inclusion (discussions which also led to and established the criteria in place for political and sports figures, as well as the standard that international media coverage does not automatically equate substantial international notability) - prior to 2021 there was severe issues with systemic Americentric bias with the year pages especially, where minor domestic figures and events from one country were included without scrutiny while their equivalent figures internationally were questioned and excluded. It doesn’t matter what the size or population level of a country is, we are not going to practice any further systemic bias here, and that has been the consensus on the main yearly pages (built up over countless discussions and edit actions by multiple regular project contributors) since at least 2021. TheScrubby (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Include Her death was notable enough for international audiences that it was reported by multiple international media organizations. Moreover, when I measure the question against the three WP source list "membership criteria", for me, at least, she passes muster. WP:LISTCRITERIAWritethisway (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

We add people on the main year pages based on their level of international notability, not international media sources. She was a predominately domestic journalist whose achievements were predominately relevant to the US alone, and whose international counterparts would never have been considered for inclusion here. The significance of Walters internationally has been greatly exaggerated by many of the users arguing for her inclusion here. Had she been from any other country, we would not have seen this level of discussion anywhere near to this extent. We should not be contributing to further Americentrism here. TheScrubby (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Include. Aside from United States sources, she was the recipient of bylined obituaries in each of the Big 5 quality press groups in the United Kingdom: Financial Times, The Observer, The Times (of London), The Daily Telegraph, and The Independent. In Australia, her death was covered by Australia's ABC, Sky News, news.com.au, and the Australian Associated Press, among others. Her contract in 1976 made her the highest paid journalist in the world at the time—truly an accomplishment—and she was clearly known in media establishments throughout the world for the way that she smashed the glass ceiling. The notion that Walters was known only in the United States is extremely contrary to facts, and frankly her accomplishments and global significance as a woman in journalism—as recognized by her peers at home and abroad—elevate her to warranting inclusion here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Many domestic figures have international obits & other media coverage due to them having fans in other countries. The media publicise journalists. We don't include people on the basis of them being the highest-paid, richest, most publicised etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

We don’t use obituaries or international media coverage as a bar for inclusion, as you can see with the FAQs section. If she wasn’t from the United States and was from virtually any other country, the media coverage would have been considerably less. Her achievements and notability were predominately domestic, and fact of the matter is, as has already been pointed out a few times, her international counterparts and equivalents would not be included/considered for inclusion, such as the aforementioned Christiane Amanpour, who has far greater international notability than Walters in her field but is not included in her birth year. TheScrubby (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The FAQ you referred to is Talk:2022/FAQ, which looks specific to this one page for 2022. Is there evidence that there is WikiProject-wide consensus, let alone widespread communnity consensus. Per the policy WP:CONLEVEL:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale

The inclusion criteria you mentioned appear to arbitrarily ignore WP:WEIGHT of sources. —Bagumba (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

See my comment directly below @Jim Michael 2:’s comment, and directly above Red-tailed hawk's comment. The consensus applies to all main yearly pages, and has been in place since mid-2021, and applied to the main yearly articles since (if you look at the history of Talk pages discussions since then, all of our inclusions come down to the international notability criteria) - nothing implies that this is limited to "this one page", which only you are interpreting as such. The consensus on these pages is that sources does not automatically equate to international notability, as thousands of domestic figures receive international coverage in the event of their death, in many cases due to said figures having fanbases outside their native countries. Furthermore, basing inclusion criteria based on coverage alone for the main international yearly pages would lead to systemic bias in favour of people from the Anglosphere/United States, as they are more likely to receive international coverage than those from other parts of the world. TheScrubby (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

What was the determination that there was systemic bias? Some said above, that there are no quotas, but what was the determiniation that WP:WEIGHT of sources shouldn't apply, if not to effectively reach an effective quota on U.S. subjects? And if that is fine, subject to consensus, what is the resistance to balancing the representation of women? Because select editors then dont want "tokenism or positive discrimination" that seems to be afforded to "international" (i.e. non-US) males? —Bagumba (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There are no quotas, tokenism or positive discrimination on main year articles, nor should there be. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

How do you propose that we evaluate notability if not by examining the extent to which she was covered? Surely, pure guesswork and speculation is not what you have in mind. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Important international awards. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Include – She was notable, also outside the English speaking countries, witness this obit in a major Danish newspaper. Favonian (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: Notification of this discussion was placed at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Barbara Walters.—Bagumba (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on inclusion on the main page, but the idea that Barbara Walters is not internationally known seems more wishful thinking by some wanting to make the 'international' argument at the main page desk. If you've not seen her reporting, you are still likely to know of her from the many many references American TV series and American music have made to her and that gets heard throughout the English speaking world and far beyond. The more distinct cutoff is probably if you're older than 30 or not. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

She's not internationally well-known. Millions of non-Americans know of her, but the vast majority only know that she was an American journalist who's well-known in the US & had a long, successful career. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Per Bagumba way above, can SOMEONE please point me to written standards somewhere, so that I can know how to weigh the current proposal against existing standards. For people who don't know what standards we use to decide which deaths to include in an article like this, how will the learn which way they should vote? --Jayron32 13:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

As has been stated several times, the discussions & consensuses are across many talk pages of main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• The consensus for these year pages is for deaths to be included here they have to be people with significant international notability. So heads of state, internationally known musicians, actors, and scientists. This his how the page is managed to prevent the article from including every death from every person on Wikipedia. This works well for the most part, but then someone like Walters who is super famous in the US, but there's a debate about her international notability. Did the average person in the Czech Republic, Japan, or India know who she was? Is Aaron Rodgers famous? Sure, would his death warrant a mention on this article? Probably not. Nemov (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  I see you asserting that. Can you point me to the guideline page where I can learn about this? If there isn't one, can you show the RFC where that consensus was formalized? I want to see for myself what the consensus is. --Jayron32 14:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't need an RfC for every one of our dozens of discussions. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's ridiculous for us to arrive at an individual consensus for every person with a Wikipedia who dies every year going back for all of the millenia where we have year articles. What a frightfully inefficient way to manage these pages. Instead, what we should do is have a discussion by which we should judge whether or not someone qualifies for listing here, so we know that when the next person dies, we can look at the standards and decide if they qualify in the first place. I mean, otherwise it's just chaos. If we have an easily repeatable task (putting several dozen people on a list), then we should have some set of criteria for who qualifies for the list. A vague sense of "internationalness" isn't really useful here without some metric by which we can measure that concept. People are going to want to be able to assess these things, and "I've never heard of them" vs. "I have heard of them" is a terrible way to do it. We need something outside ourselves we can look at to assess the suitability for the list! We shouldn't be debating "Is Barbara Walters more famous than Pele" type silliness. How is someone, who didn't know about Walters, going to decide if she qualifies without having some predetermined standard by which someone should qualify? We don't need an RFC for every person, we need an RFC for the standards by which we judge all people and their appropriateness for all year pages. --Jayron32 15:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

We have criteria in place for political and sports figures/events which you can see on the FAQs section. Outside of those fields, we’ve tried over the years on forming a criteria for entertainment figures, though the only consensus we have there is that actors and directors are included if they’ve won major international film awards, and that musicians can be included if they play a central role in an internationally notable/influential band. Overall, the entertainment field remains a work in progress. Beyond all that, we base inclusion on substantial international notability, which means we include people and events if they are significant and had an impact beyond just their home country, and if their international equivalents would reasonably be included without controversy. We measure international notability by the impact these figures had in their fields beyond their home country, or if they represent their country on the international stage (through winning international awards, through major intergovernmental organisations, etc.) or if their actions proved to be of international consequence. We don’t have consensus on automatically including people and events based solely on international media coverage, as those who lack substantial international notability (especially from the Anglosphere) will still gain international media coverage based on the number of fans they may have, or if they were the subject of a trendy human interest story that is not of lasting international significance (among other reasons that @Jim Michael 2: has also detailed time and again). We also don’t measure international notability based on the number of Wiki language articles a subject has; anybody can create language articles here at any point, and if we were to base significance off that, then Corbin Bleu would be among history’s most significant figures. TheScrubby (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can write anything in an FAQ. My question is where is the discussion that led to it being added? And why does it only apply to 2022, and not to say 1975 or 1860 or 357 BC? If you're saying "We discussed it and it was decided to add it to the FAQ", can I see the details of that discussion? If there's no discussion, there's no standard, just one person stuck it in an FAQ and no one noticed. That's not how good guidance is built. --Jayron32 13:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

No, not everyone can just write anything on a FAQ, everything that’s written there was added as a result of discussions and were never arbitrarily added as you are insinuating. There is nobody insinuating that these standards apply only to 2022 or 2023 - especially when the standard of international notability and the political criteria was formed around early-to-mid 2021. These standards equally apply to earlier year articles, and while a few has been cleaned up with purely domestic people and events removed, the fact of the matter is not everybody has the time to go through and clean up all the year pages. As for discussion, it’s hard to point you to specific discussions as there has literally been hundreds of discussions and edit actions by various users since mid-2021 where these exact standards have been enforced and put in place. If we’re talking about criteria strictly, we sorted out the political criteria through discussions held in April-May 2021 in the 2021 Talk page, while the sports criteria, which is far more recent, came about in recent months mainly on the Talk:2023 page. If you’re looking for a concise definition of international notability, one has been provided on the WikiProject Years talk page. TheScrubby (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Most of those discussions - including this one - don't need to happen. They're driven by (often persistent) fans. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I would go further and suggest that significant international notability is a fine principle, but a terrible criterion, because it’s impossible to evaluate objectively or consistently. Literally nobody is qualified to make that judgement. The inclusion standard needs to be much more mechanical. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's the best measure we've found, and better than the previous ones. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Any measure someone can assert without evidence is no measure at all. To back up an assertion that person A has "international significance" where person B doesn't, you would need some way to show a person who had no prior foreknowledge of either Person A or Person B that they met your criteria. We don't even have such a criteria. We just have people saying so and so does. People just saying stuff isn't a good means of determining anything, no matter how strenuously they say it. --Jayron32 13:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, substantial international notability has been the bar since mid-2021 and it had served us well when it comes to determining who should be added. It has substantially reduced the number of minor, domestic figures that were being added without scrutiny in recent years, and the main year pages are less Americentric than it used to be. In that time, when it has come to the main Deaths section, the only controversial inclusions have been those of Norm Macdonald and Robbie Coltrane, both domestic actors with insufficient international notability but were added as borderline inclusions as a result of fans swamping the discussions - in the latter case due to a RFC where non-regulars to these main Year pages completely disregarded the standards we had in place for some time. Something similar is now happening with Barbara Walters - a predominately domestic journalist whose international counterparts would NEVER have received this amount of discussion and would not have been included, and whose influence internationally has been massively overblown by some users. If she wasn’t from America (hell, even if she was from another country from the Anglosphere like Australia), we almost certainly wouldn’t be having, or carrying on this discussion at this juncture. TheScrubby (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

After the multiple vague waves people have given to consensus discussions here, I came across Jim Michael 2 saying the folowing on the current death criteria (emphasis added):[4]

The criteria have been decided through various discussions, so they're spread across talk pages of many articles, mostly here & on those of 21st c main year articles. They haven't been defined precisely, and attempts to refine the criteria have failed, especially in regard to sportspeople & entertainers. We therefore still very often discuss the eligibility of people to be in the Deaths sections of main year articles. There have already been many such discussions on Talk:2023, despite being less than 5% into this year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Which version are we to believe? —Bagumba (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. The bar is substantial notability, but many attempts to define the fine details of that haven't fully succeeded. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

OK. But if it's not "defined precisely", it can't be a strong, long-standing consensus nor a reliable bar.—Bagumba (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This RfC[5] touched on the subject a few months ago, but you can review the dozens of discussions here where this is a topic daily. Nemov (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The Coltrane discussion & decision is wrong, having been flooded with fans. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree and I wouldn't consider myself a fan. Nemov (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Include - It was already a shame that she wasn't posted as a death blurb on ITN. Moreover, I feel that the assessment that she was not internationally notable is not accurate. I disagree with the notion that it would be Amerocentrism/systemic bias to include her, given the international obituaries cited above.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It'd have been ridiculous for her to have had a blurb between Pelé & Pope Benedict XVI. None of the people pushing for her to be included will even try to compare her to the more internationally notable Amanpour, or say why Walters should be included but Amanpour shouldn't. Several people here are saying how important Walters is to women's journalism, but none of them have added Amanpour to 1958. Claims by at least one person here that Walters is an inspiration & idol to all (aspiring) female journalists worldwide is ridiculous. The idea that someone in Burkina Faso who wants to become a journalist to raise awareness of that country's jihadist insurgency would do so because she regularly watched Walters on TV in Ouagadougou when she was growing up & wants to be a Burkinabé version of her is laughable. She wouldn't have heard of Walters. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It'd have been ridiculous for her to have had a blurb between Pelé & Benedict. And that's true, and also quite unfortunate. The blurb nomination immediately compared her to Pele and Benedict which to me is an apples-to-doughnuts comparison, given the vastly different fields in which they operated. As for Amanpour, I am not a regular participant here; I came to this RfC when it was posted at the Village Pump. I certainly agree that she should have been added as well. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Had she been blurbed, all 3 of them, who died on consecutive days, would've been on ITN at the same time. Do you think that would've been the right thing to do? Would you say that Pelé, Walters & Benedict are of a similar level of international notability? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Several people here are saying how important Walters is to women's journalism, but none of them have added Amanpour to 1958 sounds like a WP:SOFIXIT sort of thing. Thank you for that suggestion; I will be adding her soon. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• If anything, perhaps what we need is an RfC on what "globally significant" means. A small group of Wikipedia editors active in current-events-related spaces seem to define it in a way that is all but entirely idiosyncratic to the English Wikipedia. This leads to absurdities like the once-in-a-century contested 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, front-page news around the globe, not being posted for lack of international appeal. There is no common-sense definition of global significance that includes "Exclude someone famous in the third-largest country in the world, whose death was covered globally". If people want to establish such a definition—here, at ITN, anywhere, they should get a proper consensus for it and write it down. If no such consensus should be formed, the more obvious definition of "globally significant means global sources care" ought to prevail. Anyways, here's fairly significant coverage in French of Walters' career before she died, so I don't think the premise of the exclusion argument is even accurate. I imagine similar coverage exists in many other languages; just picked the one other than English that I speak best. Include and refer broader questions to a broader RfC. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The bar is substantial international notability, not global. We don't include domestic trivia like the speaker election just because it's unusual, nor do we include things because they received international media coverage. If we included things on that basis, we'd include the Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident, which received a ridiculous amount of media coverage, massively more than the same year's far more notable 2022 Peshawar mosque attack. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

If your rebuttal is "we also excluded one of the most significant events in the history of the most prominent award show in cinema", I think you're making my point for me. But, as seen with your comment about the Speaker election, at some point—among the group of people who've made up this rule, at least—it became fashionable to intentionally misunderstand events' significance in order to make them go away. (I refuse to believe that any well-informed person sincerely believes that the public implosion of the Republican Party was "trivia"; certainly no reliable sources I read saw it that way.) It needs to stop. At this point it borders on original research. If people like a story, it's internationally/globally/whatever significant; if they don't, it isn't—usually with no effort to actually show evidence in either direction (like, again, widespread non-English coverage of Walters's career). Why don't we actually follow what RS with global audiences write about? That's what literally every other part of Wikipedia does: Follow the weight of the secondary sources. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The Republican Party didn't implode.

Unlike the media, the international regulars here aren't biased in favour of one country, nor are we writing for profit, sensationalism or popularity.

We don't mention award ceremonies in articles, let alone what people said or did at them. It was a slap, not a massacre. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

To include the US Speaker election, an entirely domestic political event over a position of domestic significance but one which does not have a bearing on who forms government or becomes head of government/state would be Americentrism, pure and simple. If you’re arguing for something that happened in the US which would never be included if exactly the same thing happened anywhere else, it’s Americentrism, which is what we have long repudiated here. We include figures and events of substantial international notability, and we will not have one set of standards for one country and another for everywhere else. That is the consensus here, which has rightly been reflected on the discussion thread here to do with this election. We have a political figures criteria as well which has been in place for almost two years, and which has served us well and has helped ensure that systemic bias is significantly curbed. TheScrubby (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

With respect to you’re arguing for something that happened in the US which would never be included if if exactly the same thing happened anywhere else, I strongly suspect that if the National People's Congress deadlocked fourteen times on electing the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, that it would be international news and a highly significant event. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

A delay in a domestic vote is trivial. If that happened in China, we wouldn't even know about it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

If it’s a contest over a domestic political position, and one which has absolutely no consequence on which party forms government or who becomes head of government/state, and if it results in a conclusion that was foregone from the beginning, it’s a domestic event and not one of substantial international notability. We are not going to make things more Americentric here; the event has already rightly been included on 2023 in the United States. TheScrubby (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) The equivalent to a contested U.S. Speaker election, in a Westminster system context, is a government being formed, something ITN routinely posts. Comments like the above are another good example of the problem with letting Wikipedians decide what feels international-y enough, rather than looking at what international media are actually covering: Namely, Wikipedians are usually not subject-matter experts, and are often bad judges of what is and isn't significant—in this case apparently due to a misunderstanding of how the U.S. system of governance works. (Likewise, Wikipedians sometimes say things like "Barbara Walters wasn't an internationally notable figure" without apparently looking up her coverage in international sources [6] [7] [8].) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's nothing of the sort. If a prime minister were replaced we'd include it, but not lesser politicians being replaced. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it would be the equivalent if the head of government/state was unable to form government and was unable to form an administration. The US Speaker vote was not such an equivalent; it was a vote for a domestic political position that is of domestic significance to the US, and is a position that is inherently domestic - and to include it on an International yearly page, especially when the final outcome was a foregone conclusion, would be crass Americentrism. And once again, we don’t measure international notability based off media coverage for these year pages. They’re essential on this Wiki for who is notable enough to warrant an article, or for other lists, but not for a page that is focused on the most internationally notable figures and events. TheScrubby (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Please explain why the opinions of a few random Wikipedians about whether something or someone is internationally significant matter more than the opinions of international media outlets about whether that thing or person is internationally significant; please explain how this position is consistent with WP:OR and WP:DUE. (And you continue to misunderstand on a basic level what actually happened during the Speaker election, which, again, is a great example of why random Wikipedians should not be trusted to make these decisions. That's not a bad thing! I wouldn't consider myself qualified to judge whether an Australian political event was significant. I just don't understand why you consider yourself qualified to judge the same for the U.S., when you don't understand what happened and the reliable sources disagree with you as to its significance.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m well aware of the US political system, how it works, and the differences between a presidential and parliamentary/Westminster political system. You’re arguing and criticising an overwhelming consensus against an event that is rightly considered domestic and of scant international significance, for a position that is relevant domestically and deals with domestic political issues - try telling me with a straight face that users would try attempting to include this if say, this were to have happened to say, Martin Romualdez or Puan Maharani instead of Kevin McCarthy. It provided for domestic political drama, but it is anything but internationally notable. Had this happened in any other country, nobody would raise a peep about it. I for one will continue to oppose systemic Americentric bias on main international year pages. TheScrubby (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the speaker election had international effects?

The media portray a slap as far more important than a suicide bombing during the same month by the world's worst terrorist group that killed over 60 civilians. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that your position here is that Wikipedians are better than reliable sources at judging significance? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

We acknowledge that the event in question was a purely domestic political event with no international repercussions (and have rightly included the event on 2023 in the United States just as all events of domestic significance go into Year In Country pages rather than the main international yearly pages for internationally notable events), and that we have a Talk page consensus on what constitutes notability for political figures and events. We acknowledge that it was a domestic political development over a position of domestic significance, and that it is in no way comparable to a confidence/confirmation vote on a Prime Minister/head of government in a parliamentary system. We acknowledge that there are issues with systemic bias towards Americentrism, and that the basic bar for inclusion on the main international - and America is not the whole world - yearly pages is international notability. Why are you trying to perpetuate systemic Americentric bias by supporting the inclusion of a domestic event that gained international media coverage (purely because of the country it happened in - and once again, nobody would try and include this if Martin Romualdez or Puan Maharani had to go through 15 rounds of votes before being confirmed, and their respective countries also has a Presidential system not unlike that of the United States) but had no international impact? We are NOT going to have one standard for events/figures of one country, and another standard for all other countries. TheScrubby (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The regulars are an international group of volunteers who, unlike the media, aren't aiming for publicity, profit or promotion. The speaker election is obviously domestic, as well as unimportant. All that happened is that there was an unusual delay. The media are obviously going to be very biased in glorifying one of the most successful journalists, but that doesn't make her international. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, There's a discussion (or several) about this exact topic going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years, but not much progress is being made. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Because a few people want to radically change things by using quotas or getting rid of deaths altogether. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Include I produced a table of deaths in 2022. This was specifically triggered by discussion of Walters' death at ITN. This lists various attributes and stats. Walters' article got millions of readers when she died which compares well with others. Most of the other figures with a similar death spike in readership are included in the 2022 article list: people like Madeleine Albright and Irene Cara. The table also shows that Walters is considered a vital topic at level 5 whereas Albright and Cara are not. Myself, I'm British and Walters name was already familiar to me and so would cause no surprise in this list.

While I'm here, in what universe is Nichelle Nichols not internationally notable? Why is she not on the list too?

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Walters gained high page views because she's very well-known in the US, where a high proportion of WP readers live. We don't measure notability by page views. If we did, we'd include many reality show participants but few scientists. Her name may have been familiar to you, but I bet you couldn't talk about her continuously for a minute without reading about her immediately beforehand.

How can you think Nichols is internationally notable? What important work did she do outside the US? What important non-American awards did she win? She's a domestic figure who merely has fans in other countries, which is true of thousands of entertainers, sportspeople etc. We don't add people on the basis of their fans wanting us to. If we did, we'd flood main year articles with pop culture figures & events, most of them domestic. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Jim Michael's test seems to be taken from Just a Minute! He certainly seems to have no trouble going on and on. I'd say more but have another discussion to attend... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

So instead of responding to his very fair points (particularly regarding Nichols) about the inclusion of domestic figures in international year pages, you resort to personal jibes? TheScrubby (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Very few internationally notable people are from any of the female-dominated occupations. That is a strange and discomforting thing to say in defending the lack of women in year articles. Women are no longer limited in occupation, and, unlike another statement above, men are no longer a large majority of scientists and other formerly male-restricted occupations. I have no opinion on the year articles, which in this discussion seem to be looking at well-known-ness rather than impact on the world. Barbara Walters impact was global on the process of allowing women all over the world to be reporters rather than staff and to appear as the public face of news. Most of you are probably to young to remember how little women were allowed to participate in many areas of public life. Respectable newspapers in my youth would not even print married women's names, referring to them instead as Mrs. John Brown or Mrs. Jack Smith. I think support for Walters in the year article reflects how important she is seen in opening opportunities for women, something male editors may not see as important in this largely male-oriented encyclopedia. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
• Include Walters. After looking more at the 2022 article, I see that impact can also be a criteria for inclusion. Nick Holonyak's name is not at all well-known worldwide, but his work made impact worldwide. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that there are internationally notable women in science, filmmaking & sport, and that women are in those occupations in larger numbers & percentages than in the past. However, they're still greatly outnumbered by their male colleagues. We measure international notability regardless of the demographic details of the people. Holonyak is internationally notable enough to be included. Walters didn't have the worldwide impact you claim. The journalism opportunities for women in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Mali etc. didn't improve as a result of Walters' success. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude There's no doubt that Walters is a famous American broadcaster, but too local in her notability I'm afraid. Several people cite UK obituaries as a non-US 'notability threshold' but there are (at a guess) several non-UK obits most days in UK media. That would imply 100s of 'significant' deaths should be recorded. I too have heard the name, but would not be able to put a face or achievement to that name, beyond a vague recollection of her being a TV presenter of some sort. Pincrete (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  How do we determine that it's not merely confirmation bias to assume that the non-UK obits are not important, merely because one is not familiar with the deceased. But a UK obit of someone also unfamiliar is still worthy of notice? —Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  International awards. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hence why I said that most of the non-Americans who've heard of her couldn't talk about her for 30 seconds. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Include a figure of international note. XOR'easter (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Include this internationally-recognized, historic pioneer of women in journalism. The suggestion that she is not notable or known or famous or important or whatever word you want to use, except in the US, must be borne from a failure to have done any research. It's trivially easy to find substantial coverage of her written outside the US, and several examples were posted above. I can't believe this is controversial. Levivich (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That's due to other journalists promoting & praising her. Thousands of domestic figures receive international media coverage, including obits. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I question your competence to participate here if you can't distinguish the difference between Barbara Walters and other journalists. Either you haven't done any research, or you're intentionally misrepresenting the research; I'm AGFing the former. You are bludgeoning this discussion and should stop posting here further; it seems you've said all you have to say since you are repeating (false) talking points. Levivich (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

None of what I say is false. I need to repeat myself because some people are falsely insisting she was an international giant. If you're saying that she was at the top of her field & in some way above all her peers, I need to mention Christiane Amanpour again. No-one here has tried to refute that she outdoes Walters in everything but length of career (which is only due to Amanpour being nearly 3 decades younger). Amanpour wasn't in 1958 until after I'd mentioned her on here a few times. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not a competition of Walters v. Amanpour for a single female quota.—Bagumba (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there shouldn't be quotas. I mention Amanpour's notability to refute claims that Walters is - as some here claim/imply - the most notable female journalist. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I really question WP:CIR here. Not only are you continuing to bludgeon by repeating the same talking points, but you do not appear to be aware that Barbara Walters was Christiane Amanpour's mentor, and this is what Amanpour wrote about Walters:

Barbara Walters amassed a body of work so impressive and so extensive that it will honestly never be replicated. She will forever be the queen of our profession — the queen of broadcast news. She blazed a trail, she was a pioneer.

It's funny how you gloss over the "three decades younger" part, clearly the chronology of Walter's career isn't sinking in (hint: it's in the word "pioneer", which I, Amanpour, and the rest of the world use to describe Walters). I'm glad Amanpour's birth was added to 1958, and when she passes away (hopefully a long time from now), her death should also be added to the year article. Like Barbara Walter's. Levivich (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Prior to today, I hadn't heard that Walters mentored Amanpour. BW isn't mentioned in CA's article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the WP:BLUDGEONING comment here, but I would also urge you to participate in good faith because the WP:CIR accusation is way off base. Jim Michael isn't the only experienced editor here arguing to exclude. Just because you disagree doesn't mean others who share a different opinion haven't don't any research. Thanks!

@Jim Michael 2, it's probably time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Editors will either understand your POV or they won't. No need to argue with everyone who disagrees with you. Nemov (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You've mentioned Amanpour plenty of times. In fact, you've responded to nearly every include !vote. I agree with other editors that you should dial back your argumentation. Also consider WP:WAX, since the inclusion or exclusion of one figure should really have no direct bearing on whether someone else is included. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Include if Bill Nieder, Lee Bontecou, and Miodrag Ješić make the cut, I do not see how Barbara Walters possibly cannot. 217.180.228.188 (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Nieder's individual Olympic gold medal means he's included. Bontecou's career was very international and Ješić's was extremely international. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Include Sufficiently well-known internationally, certainly in the UK, where her death received good coverage. Possibly the only US tv current affairs person who would have done so. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Amanpour - whose career is in the UK & US - will receive a great deal of media coverage in many countries when she dies. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)