Talk:2023

Eclipses

See WT:YEARS#Eclipses for a matter relevant to this page. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Why are eclipses excluded from the events section of year articles?! Aminabzz (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

So where is "Eclipses" in that WT:YEARS page? Aminabzz (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Advancements in ai (ChatGPT)

Is this a popular topic to be added in the heading or february section, including microsofts integration of chatgpt with bing. RoundStrider (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose AFAIK, Crypto and NFT of late 2021, and AI Art of early 2022 are trends that aren't put on the year article, and I don't think this should be included either. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I think if we are to prosify year articles, the advancement of AI should get a paragraph or two. But we are working with a timeline; only maybe the initial release date should be added. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I've removed a paragraph added to the lead, pending the outcome of this discussion. Please find the paragraph for reference below, as it may be useful to the conversation.

"2023 has seen the rise of generative AI models, with applications across various industries reaching new heights. These models, leveraging the advancements in machine learning and natural language processing, have become capable of creating realistic and coherent text, images and music." Carter00000 (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Signature Bank

Stop removing this. It was the 3rd largest bank failure in history and it comes 2 days after the 2nd largest bank failure in history in Silicon Valley Bank. This is massive, and more big banks will likely follow (a smaller bank with several billion in assets already failed on March 8). It's a crisis to rival, and almost certainly far surpass, the 2008 crisis. 88.110.121.113 (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

3rd largest bank failure in the history of a single country, the United States. Stop confusing crisis with panic. Stop confusing Year in Topic with 2023 in the United States. And wikipedia doesn't works as a crystalball so "more banks will likely follow" is not considered. This is not a Lehman Brother's situation, so calm down. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Propose to add the entry to the existing entry on SVB, given that the global media has tended to portray them together as a single story, rather then separately. Consensus among RS's (and on WP) are to report the news as part of the aftermath of the collapse of SVB, combining the two into a single topic. The notability requirments of inclusion should be met, given the SVB story has been reported internationally in almost all available RS's. Both events also have their own WP articles and a summary article for the bank collapses in March. Carter00000 (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

international coverage ≠ international huge notability. This has been said a thousand times and you should know that. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

On WP, including these years pages, we follow core WP policies such as WP:WEIGHT & WP:DUE for inclusion of content. Carter00000 (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Who questioned it? _-_Alsor (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You may review the below discussion to see the difference between the two criteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=1138613935#Long_term_ownership_at_WikiProject_Years Carter00000 (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I dispute the statement that international coverage ≠ international notability. It's not always one or the other, and coverage should be considered but not ultimately the sole thing which determines notability. As stated by Carter, our due weight policies are much better for deciding. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I second the proposal to have a single entry highlighting the bank failures and the losses sustained by intl banks like credit suisse. PaulRKil (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree too. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. This suffices as opposed to multiple entries. 88.110.121.113 (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You're right. It's significantly worse than Lehman Brothers. This is tip of the iceberg stuff, and you do not need a crystal ball to see the dominoes already beginning to fall. You just need a basic understanding of economics, which you clearly lack. 88.110.121.113 (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Just don't be overdramatic. Many experts and financial authorities are calling for calm. And, for God's sake, to say this is worse than Lehman Borthers...._-_Alsor (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

They're calling for calm, because panic never helps anything. They are also predicting more banks will fail and dark times are ahead. And yes, it is absolutely worse than Lehman Brothers. 88.110.121.113 (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

For banks, I would just include First Republic, SVB, and Credit Suisse. They're all bigger and more notable; plus more coverage on those three banks exist. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Collage

With the first quarter of 2023 done, I think we can begin making a collage which would obviously be altered throughout the rest of the year.

1. The Syria/ Turkish Earthquake 2. French Pensions protests (although this is domestic, some domestic events get global attention) 3. Israeli Judicial Reform protests (same situation as France) 4. The rise of AI (maybe Chat GPT could be used) 5. The Chinese Spy Balloon incident 6. Trump's indictment (same thing as France) 7. Signiture Bank Collapse (mostly a US thing but it had global impacts) 8. Finland joining NATO, which hasn't happened yet, but it will soon TRJ2008 (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Certainly the collage can be less American-centric than you propose: Benedict XVI's funeral, assault on Brazilian high institutions, High Seas Treaty... _-_Alsor (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Also in agreement here, although I probably wouldn’t include the Brazil capital events on the collage, for much the same reasons as those of the US in January 2021. TheScrubby (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with most of these, though I don't think the Chinese spy balloon should qualify, it wasn't that big a deal at the end of the day. GevBen (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd say five for now: Silicon Valley Bank, ChatGPT and AI, Brazil, the Earthquake, and Finland joining NATO./ InvadingInvader

Nominate the inclusion of the following events for consideration (with some events repeated from previous nominations). (1) Croatia adopts the euro and joins the Schengen Area, (2) 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake, (3) Northern Ireland Protocol, (4) High Seas Treaty, (5) Iran and Saudi Arabia agree to resume diplomatic relations, (6) Acquisition of Credit Suisse by UBS, (7) IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, (8) Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO. Carter00000 (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although I would not include the sixth IPCC report. The previous ones have not been included in the collage. Not that it's irrelevant, but it's not particularly noticeable either. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd replace the IPCC report with either the Israeli or French protests. Every previous year for the last few years has had a major protest from around the world in the collage and I feel like these were the most high profile ones this year so far. GevBen (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no need for so many pictures - in fact, there is no need for a collage at all. Let's wait until we know what this year's big news stories are. Any particularly significant individual events can have images placed alongside their entry. Deb (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I prefer to wait until this year is finished. I remember feeling that the collage of 2022 are being not up-to-date after October's events, with crowd crushes and collapses of that time. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Best option is to not have the collage at all since it is entirely useless. Least bad solution is at the very least to wait for the year to be over before we even start talking about it since trying to compile the content before year's end would just be a complete waste of time. --McSly (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the notion not to have a collage until the end of the year. And I also agree that we really don't need many pictures at the moment if there even was one right now. That being said if I had to say what I think should eligible for the collage:

• For certain - Turkey-Syria Earthquake, Finland joining NATO
• Should be considered but could be swapped out - French or Israeli protests (I don't think it's likely we'd choose both), American Bank Collapses, Brazil Congress Attack, AI, High Seas Treaty, Sudan Conflict

As I said though, I think we should wait until the end of the year just to post a definitive collage because by that point everything would be a lot clearer in retrospective on what to add and also it would avoid constant changes as notable events are always likely to spring throughout the rest of the year. CaptainGalaxy 12:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Whenever everyone decides to vote on images, I gladly volunteer to assemble this year's collage! The ganymedian (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Voorschoten train crash

Should the 2023 Voorschoten train crash be added to the article? Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. Death toll of only one. Minimal coverage internationally. Domestic incident. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sadly just another train crash. Keep it out. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Exclude given the low death rate as mentioned above. Carter00000 (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Kenyan Cult

With over 100 deaths and 400 people missing, given the unusual circumstances in which the cultmembers committed suicide as well... I think this is definitely worthy of inclusion within the events list. Thoughts? 79.69.119.219 (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

A death toll over 100 is quite significant. Is there a Wikipedia page on this? Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

There's a page on the cult, with a section on the event. Carter00000 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It's almost certainly more than 100. 400+ people remain missing, and I think a good percentage of them are assumed dead. They're still recovering bodies, but had to pause to properly document them. There's a good chance many bodies succumbed to predation given they died in the rainforest.

It's tragic, and I think fairly significant. Mass cult suicides like this have happened in Sub-Saharan Africa a few times in recent decades, but they're still fairly rare. I think the last one on this scale was the early 2000s. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Weak exclude on my part, pending further developments in this thread. I'm thinking that this would be better placed in the year where the starvation is estimated to have happened and the mass grave was first buried. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything to suggest the starvation/gravedigging began in previous years. Where are you getting this from? Many people were found deep into the process of starvation, still alive, but barely. All of the bodies seem to be recent burials in shallow graves. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Should we wait until more accurate numbers and further details are published? Deb (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see the harm in adding it for now and then either updating it as more information comes in or removing it if needs be. I think, as things stand, it’s absolutely relevant enough to be in the events list for April, just the discovery of starving people and over 100 dead bodies in addition to several hundred being missing.

That seems noteworthy enough to be right now. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but it must be accompanied by a citation from a reliable source. Deb (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay. How's that? I struggled to think of how to word it, I'm not going to lie. And I can provide more sources if needed. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Please do. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright here are a few more:

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/children-account-majority-kenyan-cult-deaths-interior-minister-2023-04-28/

https://www.citizen.digital/news/malindi-cult-shock-as-12-more-graves-discovered-number-rises-to-27-n318390

https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/sso/?content=eyJpdiI6Ino2N3o1aWZVVEtBOUdweEtnNXFnYVE9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoiWWZQOUM2cHNGTHlvUmh3S21WcFl0UlI3SXllU25ndHlnaUxzVjdRelVOSGNUemtpZ1QyQXhTRFRhL3lqdGlZZ1FUbks5ZENUa0Y0cXJaNDZ6QnM5ekxUNmNyVlFJR2tldW1VSVhLa1ZITW89IiwibWFjIjoiMTY0YjZjNTg4YzI1YjZmNzZmNGM0NTkwMjFjZDFlMzA3NjhkYTcxN2U4NzIwZjgzYjhjY2ZjOGJmYmM5MDdmMSIsInRhZyI6IiJ9

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230426-kenyans-fear-for-relatives-linked-to-cult-as-search-for-bodies-resumes 79.69.119.219 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds perfect. Thanks for adding. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Moscow Drone Attack

Is this worthy of the events list? It seemed to mark a serious escalation in the war, according to analysts and commentators, regardless of who (if anyone) will ultimately be found responsible for it. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Nobody was even injured, Putin wasn't even present, and I doubt it marks a "serious escalation". If the building was heavily damaged, with significant casualties, and/or Putin had been present, that would have been far more significant. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

These were my own thoughts on the affair, however most sources I read seemed to think if marked a significant escalation since it was, presumably, a direct attack on Putin himself deep in Russia. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Zaporizhzhia Evacuation

Is the evacuation of a town near Zaporizhzhia power plant worthy of the events list? Considering the increasingly dire situation within the plant itself and the increasingly unstable nature of the plant and its operation. Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65515443 79.69.119.219 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

If the plant itself is destroyed, that would probably be notable enough for inclusion. But I doubt the evacuation of a nearby town warrants inclusion, especially given that millions have already been evacuated/displaced elsewhere in the country. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I think if it was definitively established that the town was evacuated due to the increasing instability of the plant and fear of some catastrophic imminent meltdown (as the article I read seemed to be heavily implying) it would potentially warrant an inclusion, however as far as I’m aware the reason for the evacuation of the town has not be attributed to the nearby plant and may just be due to the impending shelling of the region and assault by Ukrainian forces. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Here’s the article, for reference. BBC seems to have been implying for around a year now that things are getting steadily worse at the plant an international bodies have issues stark warnings about a potential impending nuclear catastrophe:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65515443 79.69.119.219 (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say this singular event isn't notable enough, although if a further meltdown or similar happens that would definitely warrant inclusion. This info should probably be included on the topic page though. Yeoutie (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

DR Congo Floods

Over 400 deaths, and rising. Shall I add it to the events list?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-65521521 79.69.119.219 (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I would support adding it as it seems notable enough. On a related note I would also support adding Cyclone Freddy as a another event with its estimated 1,400 fatalities. Yeoutie (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm surprised Cyclone Freddy isn't already there. Not only for the high fatality count but also for being the longest lasting cyclone in history, by far. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove Xi Jingping's call with Zelensky?

To me, at least, just because they held a phone call does not necessarily mean it was significant. I would argue that it belongs in a more specific article, such as China–Ukraine relations, 2023 in Ukraine, or 2023 in China. I was going to remove it myself, but I figured it would be better to get consensus and see if others think it should belong. Thanks in advance. Losipov (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t particularly feel it’s important enough to be there at all, especially given the other events from early 2023 that have been omitted due to a seeming lack of importance. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree. If something concrete immediately came from it then I would support its inclusion but that looks unlikely as of now. Yeoutie (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Exclude this event, as per Yeoutie. TheScrubby (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Nah man; it's just a phone call. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump Sexual Abuse Case

While it is a civil case, and doesn't have much immediate external impact in a material sense. It seems to be quite noteworthy to me that a former US President, as well as one currently running for the upcoming 2024 US Presidental Election, has been found guilty of sexual abuse and has been ordered to pay $5 million in damages to the victim. It seems to me that in addition to being noteworthy it could have a significant impact on the current 2024 US Presidential Election campaigns. Thoughts? 79.69.119.219 (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I removed the entry, but I acknowledge your point on the potential impact that it could have on the 2024 US Presidential Elections is a valid one and should be considered. Carter00000 (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand the removal. I hesitated to add it without bringing it up on the talkpage first, but thought there might just be enough there, since it was actually a guilty verdict which resulted in a significant settlement, to warrant inclusion without discussion. But yeah I'm happy to go with whatever the consensus here is. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Noteworthy yes, worthy of being in 2023 in the United States yes, for the main year article, doubtful but we can revisit if there are significant repercussions. Deb (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

^ I agree with Deb. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I agree with you all too, by this point, haha. I personally think the indictment on March 30th was far more worthy of being included in the events list, but I believe the consensus was that this should be removed because it was just an indictment and no trial had taken place and been concluded yet or something. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that a conviction in any of Trump's other pending legal matters (ie: January 6th, Mar-a-Lago documents, Georgia election interference, hush money payments) would warrant a discussion of inclusion here (though I'm not sure all of them could be included here). Criminal matters, in general, carry a bit more weight than civil ones so that might be why it's not notable enough here. This is just my opinion though; just wanted to chime in. Losipov (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Exclude this event; belongs in 2023 in the United States. To include this event here would be Americentrism. Also find it interesting that this topic has been almost immediately brought up for potential inclusion here and not, say, the (far more significant) arrest of Imran Khan. TheScrubby (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not Americancentrism at all. And honestly, the fact that this accusation constantly flies here whenever someone suggests adding a noteworthy event which took place in America says more about the people accusing others of Americancentrism and trying to have noteworthy events which took place in America excluded from the events list than it does anything else.

I've suggested events from Kenya, Russia, DR Congo and Equatorial Guinea/Tanzania just in the past few days. I've also added events from Israel, the Indian Ocean and several others which had nothing to do with America.

So perhaps ask yourself whether you simply have an aversion to including events which took place in America and are perhaps a little overzealous in that regard.

I was funnily enough going to suggest including the arrest of Imran Khan a couple of hours ago when I first read about it, but seeing as I've brought up/added several new topics in the past few days alone I thought it best to give it a rest for a while. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Having said all that, I still don't think this particular event is actually worthy of including on the list, despite having brought it up. I would have added the Trump indictment on March 30th, though. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that some Americentrism is justified, as the world is heavily affected by American politics as well as those within other large, powerful, and influential countries such as China, Russia, the UK, Saudi Arabia, etc. However, these recent developments don't really do anything outside of the US. I would say the same of Imran Khan's release. The story of Trump's arrest itself is also much more of something to be gobbled up by the Daily Mail, and not too much critical analysis. Both don't merit inclusion, and I do think that bringing it up is a bit of WP:WHATABOUTX, something I usually don't like to see in discussions except in extraneous circumstances where such use can be justified. This isn't one of them. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Were these 2 events to have taken place on their own. I'd have probably agreed. However this is 2 fairly serious legal blows for Trump in about as many months, with many more likely to come in the coming months. Trump is a leading candidate for the 2024 US Presidential Election and a former US President. It's hard to gauge the domestic/global impact of events in a country which has such a massive influence and hold over other parts of the globe. I feel the complete lack of any mention of Trump's legal issues in 2023 so far is a disservice to the article and readers.

However, I can understand the difficulties in somehow incorporating these singular events spaced out over months. Alone they aren't particularly concerning, but I think the more they mount up the more noteworthy and impactful they probably become. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Exclude, this article is about internationally significant events. A court case is not noteworthy enough to meet that high bar, same as Trump's indictment earlier this year, neither have any international significance. Yeoutie (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the world is not really interested in this. It was not even a criminal process, but a civil one. 2023 in the United States is the only place where it should be included. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

2023 Marburg Virus Outbreak in Equatorial Guinea and Tanzania

There have been 2 Marburg virus outbreaks in African countries in the early months of 2023, combined there appears to have been a total of 41 deaths from 49 cases. This is, by far, the deadliest Marburg virus outbreak since 2004 in Angola. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_virus_disease#Epidemiology 79.69.119.219 (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It may be the deadliest, but the death toll is still very low. I think it would need to be 10 times higher and/or spreading to various other countries, to be considered for inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Reasonable. Let's hope it doesn't get to that point. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

We certainly have to be very attentive to the development of the situation. For now it is not relevant to include it. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Move AI information to a different article?

Although I agree the rise of AI is notable, I think it could be better suited in a different article than here, such as 2023 in the United States. The companies behind it, after all, are US-based. This is just a minor suggestion; I just think there's a better article(s) to include it. Losipov (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. I think I would agree as the development AI is more of a gradual increase, large increases in the technology have been happening for the last few years. I mean not even the relevant articles (History of artificial intelligence or the ongoing AI boom) don't mention 2023 as a unique year in any way (although obviously that's not controlling evidence). A related question, what about the inclusion of the release date of Chat GPT-4 on March 14? I'm not so sure if that should be included as a notable event but would like to see what others think. Yeoutie (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I added the Chat GPT event because it seemed to mark a major breakthrough in AI. Granted, I'm far from an expert in the field of AI and understanding what constitutes an AI breakthrough or milestone.

The news certainly made international headlines and provoked a hearty debate on AI and its potential in the public sphere and whether it should be limited. At least that was my perception of things at the time. In addition this sort of kickstarted the entire 2023 AI conversation and craze that is currently ongoing.

2023 definitely seems to be a noteworthy year for AI so far. It's dominating headlines and some major breakthroughs seem to have occurred in recent months. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Very strong include. The technology is a global phenomenon. See for example what Baidu and other companies in Asia are doing. And we're talking about what is – arguably – the biggest technological leap since the Internet in the early 90s. The AI boom is revolutionary and should 100% be included. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Very strong include. I agree with Will, this is the biggest technological leap since the Internet in the 1990s, it's like saying for example if Wikipedia was around then someone saying that the Internet will be a minor blimp in that century. Of course, it certainly wasn't. AI will continue to improve majorly in the years and decades to come, this certainly needs to be added. D Eaketts (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Wjfox2005 @D Eaketts Your points make sense. And I wasn't going to remove the AI stuff without consensus anyways. Maybe keep it broad without mentioning every single AI development so the page doesn't get flooded with it? Other than that, I agree. Also, @Yeoutie, I think Chat GPT-4 should be excluded because it deals with one kind of AI and not on a broader level. But that's just my opinion. Losipov (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm just not sure why the information should be included in this article. I agree with @Wjfox2005 and @D Eaketts that it is a global phenomenon which will have huge effects on society, but what makes 2023 so special relative to every other year that AI has seen advances? Not much that I can see, but would like to hear your thoughts. I think this information makes much more sense in the 2010s, 2020s, or 21st century articles. Yeoutie (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Extremely strong include. There is absolutely nothing 'Americancentric' about the rise of AI whatsoever. Most of these companies are international, regardless of where they're based, and technological advancement (especially such as this) impacts the entire human race and practically every other living species on Earth. The term 'Americancentric' is thrown around a lot on this talk page and this has to be the weakest use of it I have ever seen. I'm honestly lost for words that someone has the audacity to suggest including the rise of AI is 'Ameriancentric'. Ridiculous. You need to do some serious self-evaulation, Losipov. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

'Americancentric' is just becoming a pisspoor defence for "I don't like that more events are being added from America". That's the nature of being the dominant hegemonic power in a unipolar world. Whether people like it or not, noteworthy events are going to be dominated by events which take place in or in some way heavily involve the United States. Noteworthy events with global impact are noteworthy events with global impact, whether they take place in America or not.

This crusade against all events American on this article needs to stop. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said exclude it from the article; I just suggested there might be a better place for it than here. I suggested something similar to the phone call between Zelensky and Xi Jinping, as that could be better off in a different article (which the consensus for that was to exclude it, but that's beside the point). I merely wanted to get consensus on whether or not this is the right place for it.

And please don't accuse me of being "anti-Americentrism" or anything anti-America regarding the article. There is no need for personal attacks of this kind. I'm sure you're better than that. Losipov (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

And just so we're clear when I'm referring to personal attacks: "You need to do some serious self-evaulation, Losipov". I don't appreciate this at all. Losipov (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh come on. Don’t be so disingenuous. You know exactly what angle you were going at with your comments regarding it belonging in the 2023 in the US article and the false comment about all AI companies being based in the US (which would have been irrelevant anyway).

Most pioneering tech is centered in small geographic nodes of tech development. Again, every single event noteworthy or not generally takes place in a single location. That doesn’t make it a domestic event.

Don’t try and backtrack out of this one. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Dude, I agree with you on your position, but please tone down the intensity of your comments and look to constrictively debate. You're starting to act a little bit snappy towards Losipov, and it is starting to become a little bit uncivil. It does seem like that you're going to "win" the debate anyways, and it's time to drop the stick and slowly back away from the horse carcass. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Noted. For what it’s worth I apologize again for making you feel personally attacked, Losipov. I am merely attacking the words you posted here, that’s all. However I could stand to learn to do this less vociferously in future. I shall work on it. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer to include. I'm at a loss. These developments originated in the United States, sure, but they permanently have changed the world to an extent not seen since 9/11 (even COVID was mostly temporary when it came to its measures). The entire idea of "removing Americentrism" and removing it from year articles after the Barbara Walters RFC (which demonstrated that the Wikipedia community in general doesn't support "international notability" as previously interpreted) is perhaps the most blatant violation of WP:RGW I've seen throughout my time on the site. I think strongly that while the Americentrism arguments have died down at least since the old "international notability" phase of year articles, the POV still seems to be a bit too strong. Left uncontrolled, the idea of removing Americentrism becomes anti-Americanism, and that's gonna get this article shown up on the NPOV noticeboard. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader like I said to the IP, this was merely a suggestion. I completely understand that AI is extremely notable and definitely warrants inclusion, but I'm starting to feel like the 2020s article, as pointed out by @Yeoutie, is better (simply because this didn't start this specific year). But that's my opinion, and please understand that I was not trying to pick any fights with anyone. I don't understand why I'm being attacked for simply suggesting it (not you, don't get me wrong, but that IP for sure). Losipov (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do feel like that the way in which you presented the idea seemed to haunt me a little bit too much in phrasing as it implied a return to the old "international notability" phase on year articles. I appreciate the suggestion, and I understand your point of view, but there are fears of a slippery slope I have if we remove it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Look for what it’s worth I apologize for making you feel attacked. But I do think you need to self-evaluate your reasons for implying Americancentrism here.

If that came across as a personal attack to you, I assure you it wasn’t. I know nothing about you as a person. I am responding wholly to the comment you started this discussion thread with.

I was referring solely to you self-evaluating your suggestions of Americancentrism. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Fine, maybe I should have worded my suggestion differently. And yes, I realize that not all AI companies are based in the US or that it is simply American based. So it should be kept (for now, at the very least). But please try and be more respectful in the future (and I just saw your apology, which I greatly appreciate).

And for what its worth, thank you too @InvadingInvader. Losipov (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

If we are including it, it has to be an event, not just a gradual development, so only particularly significant moments should be included. Otherwise Exclude. As for ChatGPT, who is in a position to say that this will prove to be a significant event in the long term? We can afford to wait and see. Deb (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that some core components to human culture and development are more drawn out to the point where we can't narrow it down to an event in the same year solely to do it justice. The 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression throughout the early 1930s are very good examples of this. The economy didn't crash itself in 1930, but a major event the year before continued to affect the world. Similar with ChatGPT; it launched in November of 2022, but there's already an AI arms race between Microsoft and Google, to the point where Google's own employees are teasing company leadership for saying "AI" too much (ref). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

So may I ask why include the info here? If ChatGPT was launched in 2022, and AI has been being developed at Microsoft and Google for years before 2023, why is this year so special to include it in the lead of the article compared to those previous years? Again, important technological developments happening in this field, so important I think we shouldn't try and cram AI into some random year article and instead move this info to a more appropriate article for these types of long-lasting events like 2020s. In essence, examples thrown around are rocket tech in 1957 or stock market crash in 1929, but what thing happened uniquely in 2023 which warrants inclusion like those? Yeoutie (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Some events in AI include the launch of Bard, GPT-4, OpenAI's partnerships with Microsoft, the licensing of ChatGPT's technology to various companies including but not limited to Duolingo, Quora, and Snapchat, as well as the licensing of Bard's technology to Wendy's for experimental drive-thrus in Columbus Ohio. We didn't see these derivative advancements last year, and many of them probably could be too small themselves to mention independently in here, but their collective impact on AI are symbolic of the increased role that AI plays. A blurb in the lead encompassing these advancements in general is most appropriate, since these encompass the general trend throughout the year. May I ask why it is even the best idea to only have year articles be lists of events, rather than more prose-based articles such as the new 2001? Why appeal to tradition when there is a better way to have both? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

To more directly answer your question on why 2023 is so much more special in AI than other years, the advancements in AI seen in 2023 rather than 2022 are more numerous, consistent, and year-spanning than in 2022. For 2022, we only saw ChatGPT. In 2023, we have all those events I mentioned in the previous comment. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

To me it seems that, the more numerous they are, the less significant each single event is. Deb (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but what can we do to encompass the general trend that is AI? It's still important. Unless we start making year articles like the new 2001 (which ain't a bad idea), a blurb in the lead is the best we can do. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I imagine the people strongly involved in tech analysis and future projections and so forth are in a position to do that, and they seemed to think the Chat GPT thing on March 14th was a big deal, as well as the past few months in general for AI.

A breakthrough, or breakthroughs, a milestone or leap.

Now granted, I am far from an expert on this. So if I’m wrong, and these tech articles and analysts and predictions are wrong (or I’m just reading them wrong), correct me by all means. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think a somewhat rough comparison here is the Space Race. So say in 1957 (I know my timeline is way off but it’s a hypothetical so bear with me) there were several major advancements in rocket propulsion technology and some high profile launches that surpassed everything that had been achieved beforehand.

That would be worthy of a mention in the 1957 article right? Both in the opening and in the events list? 1957 would in part be defined by those advancements in rocket propulsion technology and rocket launches. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Another example I'll give here is wars. The Ukraine War technically began in 2014. However the massive escalation in 2022 resulted in it dominating the year of 2022 in both events and the opening. World War 2 is another example. Again it began in 1939 but the major offensives and battles and atrocities of that war occurred towards the later years, in the early 1940s.

When something 'begins' is not the be all and end all of an event or movement.

So this argument that AI technically existed before 2023 isn't really a strong one, in my opinion. If 2023 is a year dominated by AI advancements and leaps and innovations then the fact that AI existed before this is totally irrelevant. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude "An AI arms race between private companies has continued since the late-2010s, with Microsoft-backed OpenAI and Google-owner Alphabet today most dominant among firms." this is way too detailed. Concerning the earlier parts: I think it would be good if it was mentioned very briefly in the lead and/or elsewhere in the article.

It's a major development but utterly overhyped and there are many more scientific and technological developments that aren't even mentioned with just a single word in this article despite possibly larger potentials for positive impacts, especially not the lead.

It's also inaccurate: these are not "arms" but polypurpose software – in specific software that could be briefly describable as being: chatbot functionality similar to but more sophisticated than Cleverbot which has been around since over a decade, so-far minor coding helper tools, a possibly near-term substantial misinfo- & scamming-tool, already-substantial artistic image creation tools / helper tools, and an unrealiable/inaccurate general text-generation solution still in search of problems. Even when just considering AI developments but not other developments that may be more relevant to e.g. major global risks or reduction of deaths and suffering, it's inadequate to single out specific AI companies at a minimum – see other developments at Timeline of computing 2020–present#AI software where people interested (further) in the subject-matter could maybe be directed to. That it's a global phenomenon is even more reason to not name specific companies or products. Mostly agree with Deb.

Prototyperspective (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"there are many more scientific and technological developments that aren't even mentioned with just a single word in this article despite possibly larger potentials for positive impacts, especially not the lead."

Can you give some examples? 79.69.119.219 (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

When limiting this to only technological new developments (why?), not scientific ones (studies/study results, open letters, general developments and trends in science, new scientific fields, new scientific projects) and also excluding other AI developments (why?):

• life extension tools demonstration like reprogramming in mice, RSV vaccines, space debris mitigation tech like ESO ADEO, green hydrogen production methods, rise of TikTok, drone and combat drone defense technologies, wetware computing/organoid intelligence results, asteroidal planetary defense technology demonstration, more gradual developments in e.g. floating solar or agrivoltaics or cellular agriculture or mycoprotein food production or various in vivo microbots or heat pumps or perovskite solar cells or recycling methods, epigenome editing demonstrations, genetic engineering tools, etc.

It would be a good point if there was any good reason to limit things included here to novel technology developments while developments only related to technology or scientific-only or more gradual in nature are excluded. I said more scientific and technological developments.

Concerning the "Americancentric"-relating rationales for inclusion, I'd like to remind people here that apparently on this basis (not a global development in terms of producer but only in impact) a mention of the substantial global media attention receiving UFO Report (U.S. Intelligence) was removed in 2021 despite that it wasn't even in the lead. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I firmly agree all those should be in the events list at the very least though. I think the events list is woefully misrepresentative of 2023 as things stand and the unyielding insistence on including completely mundane, quadrennial executive elections for every single sovereign state in the world over events like the ones you've just listed will never cease to confound and depress me.

I actually agree the stuff about AI should be trimmed in the opening, and a more general focus on the tech/science developments (some of which you've listed there) could be incorporated into the opening.

I feel like ultimately your argument is for more inclusion rather than exclusion of the AI craze though, whether you intend it to be or not. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I only said that the latter part that I quoted should be removed. I'm neutral as to whether the part before that is kept in the lead but I'd prefer if it was made a bit shorter and less promotional in tone. It's very inadequate to name specific products or companies there, at the least in this case.

It's already mentioned under Events despite of other major science-related events usually not even getting briefly mentioned. The releases of Cleverbot or Visual Studio or other equivalent software were not listed under Events, nor were other developments with larger media attention (or other developments of much higher non-media impact on overall deaths/DALY/global problems/global risks/etc). Moreover, it's probably inaccurate to call the two named companies "the most dominant among firms" when referring to the earlier mentioned AI art too.

This part should be removed asap given that it's also factually incorrect, this is not an arms race. Please keep science fiction fueled hype out. Even if it was an arms race or primarily/substantially an arms race, the latter part is basically promotional, biased and absolutely not okay. Otherwise I'm all for keep when the question is whether or not to include info about and a wikilink to AI boom here.

Another way that it's inaccurate is that it suggests that "have become capable of creating realistic and coherent text" is something new. It's not.

Why is the IPCC report not mentioned in the lead and has only one very brief sentence under Events while one third of the lead covers generative AI despite that bio/medical applications of generative AI are not mentioned (the focus instead is put on near-useless to largely-problematic text-generation or largely-niche music generation)?

If more input is needed ask for that on Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Include on case-by-case basis as per Deb. While there’s certainly significant issues with Americentrism on these pages (and it’s not helpful to deny that such an issue does exist in general, and to sweep it under the carpet/dismiss it), I don’t think that’s a criticism that can really be applied here. TheScrubby (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There's just as much, if not significantly more, issues on this page with severely weak or plain false accusations of Americancentrism whenever someone tries to add noteworthy events (or just unnoteworthy events they genuinely thought were noteworthy) in some way tied to the United States. That is what was being criticized, so your strawman and muddying of the waters here is completely unhelpful and unnecessary. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the correct term for it would be, but the opposition to perceived Americancentrism on this page has basically ventured into the shadowy depths of inverted snobbery by this point. It's becoming borderline neurotic the way people so carelessly and zealously throw around accusations of Americancentrism and use it as a shield to attack and have removed events they don't think should be in the article. It's becoming a nothing term void of any substance due to its exhaustive, often inaccurate, overuse. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I said the insinuation that to include AI information is Americentrism is not something I agree with, and that the criticism is not something I think can be applied in this particular case - I cannot believe that you’re actually doubling down under the circumstances. I remain firmly opposed to actual Americentrism, which is where figures/events that would not be included had they been from any other country, are included when they are from America. That is systemic bias, and I absolutely stand by every assertion that I have made of Americentrism - which does not include this particular scenario. No, instead I believe that events from every country should be treated equally and that no country and their events should get special treatment. If an equivalent event/figure from anywhere other than America is deemed insufficiently notable for inclusion on the main yearly articles, then those from America should be treated no differently. The figures aspect is no longer an issue because the Deaths section - which had been a source of endless conflict and contention - has been removed. But no, I will absolutely continue to call out and vote against the inclusion of events which would be blatant examples of Americentrism/American exceptionalism. TheScrubby (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s a ridiculous standard to rigidly adhere to though because all countries are not equal in development, scale, reach, power, influence and importance, whether we wish this to be the case or not. The election of a warmongering leader in America for example has far more dire potential impacts on the world than the election of a warlord in an impoverished thirdworld country with no force projection or weapons of mass destruction and so forth.

In addition, certain countries have disproprotionate levels of certain events and things. AI for example being heavily concentrated in one small area of the US. Or Nobel Prize winners being massively disproportionately Jewish (do we stop including Nobel Prize winners in articles because of this? No, it’s preposterous).

Just because this is the case doesn’t mean we cannot report on these meaningful events that happened to be concentrated in one region or dominated by a particular group of people.

If a year happens to be dominated by American events and figures then it just is.

I agree with not being anything -centric as much as is reasonably possible but certain events have different magnitude and scale and potential impact depending on where in the world they happen.

A tsunami that striking a highly urbanized, developed coastal region does not have the same impact as a tsunami that strikes an unpopulated stretch of barren coastland.

Right? 79.69.119.219 (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Frankly I disagree entirely with the premise of your response (especially the tsunami analogy), and I have nothing further to add other than that I will not give or make excuses for preferential treatment/systemic bias towards events from one country, and that I am thoroughly opposed to having one standard for events from one country, and another standard for events from 200+ other countries. I have zero intention in commenting further on this thread and zero intention of doing anything resembling WP:BLUDGEON, and I advise you to do the same. TheScrubby (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

You don’t agree there is disparity between the various regions and sovereign states and even individuals of this Earth? And that events that happen in certain institutions or regions or sovereign states have different weight and impact and importance and influence than they would if they took place in others?

What color do you happen to think the Sky is, out of curiosity? 79.69.119.219 (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

”Sigh” - please read WP:BIAS and (especially) WP:STICK. TheScrubby (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Ultramassive Black Hole

Does the discovery of an ultramassive black hole (the first to be measured using gravitational lensing) in late March warrant inclusion in the events list? My gut says include. Thoughts?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-65109663 92.5.110.146 (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Impressive and exciting discovery, but I don't consider it notable enough for this page. Even larger black holes have been found, and this one doesn't provide anything fundamentally new, other than the discovery method, which is already used in other areas of astronomy. It's already mentioned on 2023 in Science. Wjfox2005 (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Biology and Technology News

Should (1) "A potent new antibiotic, abaucin, capable of killing Acinetobacter baumannii (one of three superbugs the World Health Organization has identified as a "critical threat" to humanity), is created using artificial intelligence" and (2) "Elon Musks's Neuralink receives FDA approval to begin human trials" be included on the page? Carter00000 (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Strong include 92.5.100.233 (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Noting that this is the IP who originally added the two entries. Carter00000 (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that excluded me from giving my opinion on inclusion/exclusion. 92.5.100.233 (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

No. And can this "92.5.100.233" person stop adding entries like this. I mean look, I absolutely love science and technology as much as they seem to. But stuff like this just isn't notable enough for inclusion on the main year page. A small number of such events are occasionally suitable, yes (such as NASA and ESA's flagship missions, or some major breakthrough in fundamental science). But in general, they belong on 2023 in Science, or elsewhere. Thanks. Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

How is an AI developed antibiotic that can treat one of the 3 major superbugs threatening humanity not notable? I can see how the Musk entry would be up for debate, but that abaucin removal is preposterous.

The fact that these notable events are all happening within a short space of time of one another is irrelevant. All years are not equal, some barely have any entries in the events list while others (like 2020) have footlong events lists for fairly obvious reasons.

How do you not see abaucin as a major breakthrough in science. How is the launch of JUICE anywhere near as noteworthy as that? 92.5.100.233 (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I also don't get the comment about 'loving science'. I've added/suggested all kinds of recent events from natural disasters to mass cult suicides to AI breakthroughs to viral outbreaks. I've added/suggested around 2 or 3 science/technology related events out of the past dozen edits/suggestions.

And I tell you something else, not a single suggestion/edit I've made has been anywhere near as unnoteworthy as the routine quadrennial executive election of Trinidad and Tobago or Andorra.

If you want to talk about a waste of article space and futile events additions let's talk about including the executive elections from every single sovereign state on the planet in the article. 92.5.100.233 (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I would exclude the FDA approving Musk's neuralink for human trials, as pharmaceutical trials routinely fail. This clearly isn't important enough in my view.

I'm less certain on abaucin, given its potential and being created by AI, plus I don't have much expertise in biology & chemistry. But I don't think removing it would be a big deal, as many notable events are routinely excluded on these pages. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Exclude both just because a drug is created doesn't mean it has been approved by any government agency for usage as is the case for neuralink. PaulRKil (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Exclude both I understand the point the anon is trying to make, but the events section is for events whose significance is already known. Things like the discovery of quarks or penicillin or DNA (I think you can already tell I'm not a scientist) become significant in retrospect, when they have been proved. If at a future date these particular events prove significant, they can be added here as well as in 2023 in science. Deb (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

AI News

I've seen a lot of discussions here about what to do with the many AI developments which have been happening recently. I propose that we create a new article, 2023 in AI (similar to 2023 in the United States or 2023 in Spaceflight) for the less important things, while keeping a handful of the most notable things on this page. Beethoven3 (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

A dedicated article for AI seems like a good idea, given the sheer number of developments we're seeing now. However, the paragraph beginning "In the realm of technology" on the main year page should absolutely be kept, as I've said before. Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. 92.5.100.233 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

While we're at it can we create a 2023 in Politics thread so we don't need to add every single quadrennial election of the executive branch in every sovereign state on Earth to the events list? 92.5.100.233 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

There's never been anything to stop anyone doing so. Deb (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Update I've made some expansions to the article 2023 in AI. Please take a look and see if anything should be added or changed, if you would like to. Carter00000 (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Solar Eclipse

Should "A hybrid solar eclipse is visible from Australia, East Timor, and Indonesia" be included on the page?

I note that the event has its own article linked in the entry and is quite sizable.Carter00000 (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Strong Exclude as prior talkpage consensus is that we don't add solar eclipses or any celestial events, even if they have an article. PaulRKil (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

From when have this change been done? Where is that talkpage consensus? Aminabzz (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Exclude as per PaulRKil. TheScrubby (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry on the talk page and the article

Looking at this talk page, so many discussions are being, let's just say, "poisoned" by the block-evading IP 92.14.216.40. Mutt Lunker remarked,

Geolocations, idiolect, intemperance of interactions, areas of interest, all fit.

What should we do about the discussions and the edits that IP has been involved in? They brought toxic atmosphere to these discussions. MarioJump83 (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give some specific examples of how the IP has "poisoned" discussions and brought toxic atmosphere to the page? I interacted with the IP above quite a bit, and felt the IP acted quite normally, except for wanting to discuss items more then usual.

Since I'm quite new to editing on this page, perhaps I'm missing some context? I see that the SPI has many, many entries, and the IP's final message on their talk page was quite hostile [1]. Carter00000 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:SOCKSTRIKE is a useful guide to the options. Striking through the sock's comments allows the good faith comments of other users to remain in context, while highlighting that the struck comments are by a block-evader and should be perceived in that light. Otherwise, hatting, and other options. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding context of the long-term abuse, the IP-hopping nature of their activities makes it difficult to gain a picture of their history of disruption. It covers their tracks and we shouldn't have to assess each new edit: we know it's them, they are blocked, can not be trusted and should not be here. It's been pointed out to them on numerous occasions that they can WP:APPEAL their block if they really have turned over a new leaf and, if they were successful, signing up as a user, rather than popping up on endless IPs as each previous one is blocked, would show good faith. The ony response, to continue the hopping and their true colours always show, per the latest talk page rant. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Then it is clear that their main purpose of editing Wikipedia was to spread what they believe Wikipedia should have looked like, preferably without consensus. MarioJump83 (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main MO for the IP was to reverse the years articles' content back to what it was like in 2019 and 2020, which both are very big articles to begin with, as during that time there's no one to regulate what should be added or what should be not - discussions were not that important at that time. And they are throwing tantrums whether the discussions wasn't going in their way, which resulted in harassment against InvadingInvader on March as Wikianon2023. That's the basic gist of what I know about them. MarioJump83 (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

While it’s always a good thing to call out sockpuppetry when such cases arise on these pages (as is unfortunately the case all too often), the most appropriate place to resolve this would be to file a report at WP:SI. TheScrubby (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

To what end? Are any not already blocked? Any active ones at least. The issue in this thread is dealing with their edits, particularly their posts here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean “to what end”? Sockpuppetry is something we take very seriously here, and if there is indeed a suspected case then it should be immediately reported and investigated by admins, regardless of whether they were active now or active in the past. This way as well, we can help prevent further sockpuppet edits from this user. I wouldn’t know if any are currently blocked or active because I haven’t been intimately engaged with this particular case, but I would imagine the onus is on those who have made the initial accusation. TheScrubby (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is about what to do with the edits of the socks, not the socks themselves, as they have already been dealt with. No SPI is outstanding and SPIs don't deal with the legacy of the sock's edits, the issue at hand. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

India overtaking China as most populous country

Do we think this is notable enough? It seems there has been support for inclusion but the prior entries were premature. It appears now that most sources agree that India is now the most populous country. I've always been on the side of borderline include since we don't do this for any other milestone. For example, we probably wouldn't add an entry if China had overtaken the US for the world's largest economy.

If we keep inclusion, I think it makes the most sense to include it in the lede as we don't have an exact date for when India overtook China. We could go with April 24th as that is when the UN announced it, but I think it makes more sense within the lede. PaulRKil (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I am leaning towards include. But only with a reliable, credible, official source included. Not some obscure blog or opinion piece. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I copied the entry from 2020s about the population change and it cites the united nations. To me, that seems authoritative enough in spite of some peoples perceptions of the UN. PaulRKil (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with inclusion until List of countries and dependencies by population is updated, and if an exact date can be RS'd. Include as an event. The prominence given as a sentence in the lead to me is undue weight. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Could someone inform me as to why that the UEFA has an Invisible comment telling us to not include it?

I don't see consensus on this specific talk page to remove it, please direct me to the discussion if such one exists. Would dispute the decision as well; UEFA to Europe itself as well as football/soccer fans worldwide is a BIG deal and certainly has the Due Weight which merits inclusion. I believe that the UEFA invisible comment violates Wikipedia:Invisible comments on it telling editors on how to edit, and certainly if no consensus to exclude UEFA exists. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm open to a discussion on UEFA and the other five federations when it comes to their championship series'. My understanding is that we really only mentioned global sporting events such as the World Cup and the Olympics on main year articles as seen in this discussion. My only concern is that it introduces a situation where editors may feel compelled to enter other events like the World Series or the Super Bowl. PaulRKil (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Titanic Submersible Disappearance

Should "A submersible carrying five people goes missing while attempting to view the wreck of the Titanic" be included on the page? Carter00000 (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Include. (Edit: But perhaps reword it to emphasise the international aspects.) This is clearly a prominent story and a notable event in 2023. It's drawing worldwide attention, and been the main headline across major news outlets, for days now. International crew, international rescue effort (Canada and the U.S.), deep sea mission to an iconic shipwreck (Titanic). Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

? Of course. The language should be tweaked when more information evolves, but undeniable that this should be included. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Include this. It is worldwide news, and a major international event. The ganymedian (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Exclude we don't include similar events in main year articles, for example we don't have the disappearance of Hale Boggs and Nick Begich nor do we include the disappearance of Steve Fossett. There is a lot of media coverage but just because there is coverage doesn't mean it warrants inclusion. PaulRKil (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, as while the event is noteworthy, the articles for specific years regularly exclude many noteworthy events. The death toll, while tragic, wasn't especially high and this event was isolated due to specific problems with the submarine. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Include due to wide international interest. Try to merge all the necessary details into one entry, and consider making such date that the event it's listed on as the day when the sub is first reported. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment. I've removed the importance inline tag for this entry, given the responses in this discussion. Carter00000 (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2023‎ (UTC)

Yes, I agree, given the likely repercussions of this event. Deb (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with removing the inline tag and rescind my exclude comment. PaulRKil (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

When should we include the current events going on in Russia?

I think a starting point at the very least is what the initial outcome is in Rostov, but I'm open to any comments or suggestions on it. This seems like an absolute no brainer to include IF the reports are accurate (much is still unconfirmed, I should add).

Pinging @PaulRKil and @InvadingInvader, but I'm all ears to anyone. Losipov (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The current entry looks fine to me, but let's see how the story develops in the coming days/weeks. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I think its always appropriate to wait until more authoritative sources are able to corroborate the information. The original entry was largely added when the information was coming from open source intelligence and telegram channels who were largely just sharing statements from Prigozhin, who is objectively not the most reliable individual. At this point, the entry looks good but may need more detail as the events unfold. PaulRKil (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur with PaulRKil and am going to say Wait. It's probably gonna be on here eventually...but the success of Wagner's incursion changes whether this is simply an event or something bigger spanning multiple entries. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Collage

2023 is now halfway done and I think we can start working on a collage. There will obviously be moments later in the year that would replace some of those I'm about to mention. Anyway here's my suggestions:

The Turkish Earthquake

The Titan Implosion

Charles' coronation

The rise of AI

The spy balloon incident

The Israeli Judicial reform protests

The Wagner rebellion

The Sudanese conflict TRJ2008 (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally I am of the opinion we shouldn't have a dedicated discussion on the collage until say late-November or December. A lot can happen in another 6 months so I'd rather we just let it play out before we focus on the collage. That being said, in my opinion some of the events suggested I don't think reflect this year or at least aren't as impactful as others. The events in question that you have listed are; The Titan Implosion - It doesn't have any impact on much, Charles' Coronation - Debatable but is likely not going to get past voting, Spy Balloon - It was impactful but feel wasn't as notable as other events, Wagner Rebellion - Could be really impactful but I suggest just waiting and seeing how it pans out. CaptainGalaxy 14:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

We have already come to a concensus on the collage

We have added the earthquakes, the Brazillian congress attack, the banking crsis, and the ICC's arrest warrant for Putin. You can find the links to the images on the edit page. Thanks for trying DementiaGaming (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Canadian wildfires, MINUSMA, Nahuel M

Apparently, these events may have international impact. Canadian wildfires, for example, had affected United States and may have affected UK. Last day, MINUSMA was ended, and Nahuel M riots, while mostly localized to France, had cancelled Macron's visit to Germany. Should we include it? I'm not sure. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest to only include MINUSMA, as it was a international taskforce. The wildfires and riots I feel are more localized to their country, so are not as significant. Carter00000 (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I've boldly added the UN ending MINUSMA. Carter00000 (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

2023 North India floods & 2023 South Korean floods

Should we add 2023 North India flood & 2023 South Korean floods to the page? The death toll for both events are quite high, comparable to other disasters which have been included on this page (ie. June 21, June 14, March 18, January 10). Carter00000 (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Should the 2023 Uzbekistan presidential election be removed?

In my opinion the July 9th entry about the 2023 Uzbekistan presidential election should be removed, because the incumbent was elected in a rigged election with no genuine political competition. It also wasn't a referendum (i.e. for constitutional or territorial changes). Most national elections are featured, but some aren't (i.e. obscure, regional or local, or rigged). I think this one should be removed for being rigged. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Strong Include. We have usually included elections which have been alleged to be "rigged" in the past. We're here to document events as reported in RS's and not here to right great wrongs by creating original research evaluating weather a election is "rigged" or not. Carter00000 (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800, I note that you've removed the entry with the edit summary The 2023 Uzbekistan election is not sufficiently important--the incumbent was easily re-elected, the country is obscure, and there was no corresponding referendum as well.

- I've addressed you first point the incumbent was easily re-elected in my previous comment.

- On your second point the country is obscure, this is essentially systemic bias. As per the page, Bias can be...implicit when articles or information are missing from the encyclopedia. Your rationale is essentially stating that systemic bias should be the basis for evaluating weather a item is included. We're not here to evaluate weather a country is obscure, nor should we be making that distinction.

- On your third point there was no corresponding referendum as well, I'm not sure how it is relevant. Current consensus does not typically require a corresponding referendum for a election to be considered valid, or included on a page. Carter00000 (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. I don't think this should come down to whether it was "rigged" but rather if it is a notable enough event. Not every election is included in this article and elections like these really bloat the article. Yeoutie (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Related to this, this article is becoming overrun with similar elections that are not notable enough and belong in 2023 national electoral calendar and similar articles. In my opinion elections such as: Niuean, French Polynesian, Antiguan and Barmudan, Mauritanian, and more should all be removed. Just because it is an election is not sufficient enough to warrant inclusion here. Yeoutie (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I looked at 2022 and 2021 and got the impression that we tend to list all national elections, even the ones in small countries. I think that's a reasonable approach. I guess there are roughly fifty to eighty such elections per year. Year pages list a few hundred events. Sure, a significant number of them will be elections – I guess around 25% to 30%. Seems OK to me. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you are correct as I consulted with the 2016, 17, 18 and other articles as examples and did not look at the most recent years. Seems like the standards for the inclusion of elections have become broader as very few elections are included in articles pre-2020s, going back for decades. Yeoutie (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. Few elections are listed on 2016 and 2017, but lots on 2018 (117 words on that page contain "elect"). I wonder if there used to be a rule about inclusion of elections on year pages that changed around 2018, but I guess if there was one it was more implicit than explicit. I tried to find general inclusion rules for year pages, but didn't come up with much. WikiProject Years and Timeline standards don't seem to provide detailed guidance. Maybe there were discussions about which elections to include on Talk:2017, Talk:2018, etc.? I didn't check. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Include, of course. Frankly, people who think Uzbekistan is "obscure" shouldn't be editing this page. Wikipedia:Competence is required. And of course national elections are notable enough for year pages. Just look at 2022, 2021, etc. etc. We list national elections, even in tiny countries like Cape Verde. If the elections are considered rigged or illegitimate by national or international observers, we clearly say so in the lead of the election article. Unfortunately, that's the case for lots of elections, e.g. 2021 Ugandan general election, 2022 Turkmenistan presidential election and many others, but of course we still list them on the year page. Let's not be silly. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Include all elections or events that affect a nation's head of state or head of government including presidential elections, national parliamentary elections, and other such elections including indirect elections (papal conclaves, committee votes that are used in single party states like China, appointments by a monarch, etc.) and events like the death of a leader, resignation, coup, war, government collapse, etc.

If we want to remain free of a western bias, we need to include every sovereign nation state regardless of size or influence. PaulRKil (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Typhoon Doksuri

The death toll for Doksuri is getting up there (122 last time I counted), and it affected three different countries. Should we add it? Let me know. DementiaGaming (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)