Talk:2022 in the United Kingdom

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[2021–present global energy crisis#United Kingdom|energy crisis]] The anchor (#United Kingdom) has been deleted by other users before.
[[SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant#Sublineages and BA.2 subvariant|BA.2]] The anchor (#Sublineages and BA.2 subvariant) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Moving some information

This article's getting awfully big so I'm going to look at transferring anything relevant to England only across to 2022 in England which was only recently created and currently contains three events. Hope this is ok. This is Paul (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've transferred some stuff to 2022 in England, but feel free to revert anything you feel I shouldn't have removed. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political bias?

I notice that news entries refer to the Labour leader as 'Sir Keir Starmer' and the Conservative leaders as 'Johnson' or 'Truss'. This seems to me to be both disrespectful of the Conservative leaders and to indicate a bias towards Labour. 2.101.97.219 (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...thanks for bringing this up and sorry for the late reply! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add a photo for Robbie Coltrane?

I'd like to seek consensus before we add Robbie Coltrane's photo to the side. I think that he's one of the most famous deaths of the year so far, only being superseded in notability and recognition by the Queen and maybe Olivia Newton John, and also one or two people I may be forgetting. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Lansbury is much more notable, so she should have a photo in the October subsection of the Deaths section. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we can fit both, would you be opposed to both? InvadingInvader (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both in the October subsection would be good, as they're the two most notable people to have died this month. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why the long intro?

Why the long intro? We don't do it for the other Year in the UK pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not we start adding it then? Gives the article more of a sense of identity rather than being just a database of some events. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unattributed opinion

I don't know why this has become an issue, but as Wiki policy requires all assertions to be reliably sourced, how can we accept this (19 December about Jeremy Clarkson): ... describing his hatred of Meghan Markle, which critics deem misogynistic? There are sources cited, all they support are four people saying that. "Critics" is vague and unsupported. WP:WEASEL calls this sort of usage "weasel words". We either need a source which says "", or we need to attribute exactly which individuals the sources support as making this criticism.

I repeatedly tried to fix it, but was (twice quite rudely) reverted each time by Wjfox2005:

When the cited source only gave one, named, critic: I tweaked the entry to reflect that source - was reverted and then more sources were added
I modified the entry to reflect the new sources - was reverted
I tagged the weasel words - was reverted
I reverted with a long explanation - was reverted with the answer to an unasked question

Is it unreasonable to expect critics to be identified and opinion to be properly attributed in this entry per WP:POV and WP:V? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list of "critics" is long, and includes political leaders, dozens of MPs, law firms, even Clarkson's own daughter, and many other people. You yourself admit "they support [...] four people saying that." A quick search, on Google News, finds innumerable other references to "misogyny" by Jeremy Clarkson this week. I could post dozens more citations. What on earth could the other 6,000 possibly be complaining about? In fact, I see the number has since grown to 20,000. You are clearly attempting to minimise this story by trying to imply that only a very small number of people have complained about misogyny. It's a pattern you've demonstrated over and over again on UK year articles, due to your deeply right-wing views. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to say that many people criticised him for misogyny, then you need a source saying exactly that, and one, maybe two sources, saying that will be perfectly adequate. All you gave so far are sources supporting that just those four individuals said it. If you want to imply the 20,000 are complaining of misogyny then the source needs to say so, we cannot assume it or imply it otherwise. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Robbie Coltrane.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]