Talk:2022/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Consensus is ideal of course, but there's no shortage of international reliable sources covering her death or lamenting the impact she left. The vague "standards" at use here are particularly troubling though and reek of original research. Better to find and use reliable sources that document "years in review" and simply crib from them rather than argue each and every item as if you're all some council of years-articles overlords. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)