Jump to content

Talk:2022

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 73.12.209.248 (talk) at 14:12, 8 July 2022 (→Assassination of Shinzo Abe: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk

It's very common for businesspeople to buy & sell companies. We rarely include them on main year articles. Twitter is a social networking service. It's not powerful, important or particularly influential. Most of its content is pop culture, celebrities, sports coverage, trivia, gossip, propaganda, self-promotion, conspiracy theories, trolling, opinions & people posting photos of their food, their pets etc. Using Twitter coverage as a measure of importance, the minor attacks on Chris Rock & Dave Chappelle are among the most important world events of 2022 and are many times more important than the 2022 Peshawar mosque attack. It has news coverage, but so do many other sites & it's not widely considered to be an important, reliable news outlet. Claims, speculation etc. about how Elon Musk may change it are akin to looking into a crystal ball. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, if you don't think Twitter is "powerful, important or particularly influential", you are clearly not familiar with it. Yes, it covers pop culture, but of course it does, because so does every type of media. The fact that Twitter is used by megacorps and politicians alike to release news, announce policy and discuss the issues of the day should tell you how seriously it is taken. Politicos - up to and including heads of countries - don't phone up the NYT or Reuters to give their opinions - they simply post them on Twitter instead. There was a survey recently - which of course I now can't find - that showed that something like 70% of adult Americans used Facebook and/or Twitter as the main method of acquiring their news. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am familiar with it. The amount of genuine, useful, reliable news on it is greatly outweighed by various junk of the types I list above. Compare how long the Will Smith-Chris Rock slap trended on there to how long the Peshawar mosque attack did. The former gained so much more coverage that you couldn't compare them on the same scale. No-one could genuinely say that an actor slapping another actor is worse or more important than an Islamic State suicide attacker killing over 60 people as part of an arrogant attempt to form a caliphate. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And tabloid newspapers regularly sell more than heavyweight ones, and EastEnders has higher viewership ratings than Panorama, but we don't exclude The Times or BBC TV as some of our most reliable sources. I'm not sure of your point here, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Times is heavyweight, content-wise. It didn't go downmarket when it reduced its size. We don't use lowbrow sources such as The Sun & the Daily Mirror. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, yes, that's exactly my point. We don't define British newspapers by the fact that the Daily Mail is the best-selling one, we don't define the BBC by its most watched programme, and similarly we don't define Twitter as trivial because a lot of people post cat memes on it. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It's not powerful, important or particularly influential." -- Genuinely, one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on a Talk Page. And I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Twitter's defence it should be pointed out that 329 million people still use the site as of April 2022. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No-one's disputing that Twitter is popular, but even if it were one of the most important things in the world - rather than merely one of the most important & popular social media sites - that wouldn't mean that a change of ownership is an important event. Businesses, websites etc. undergoing changes of ownership aren't inherently important events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Come on jim Michael, it just seems that everyone disagrees with you at this point, Twitter is one of the biggest social media platforms out there, Elon Musk buying up Twitter could be a new era for social media, and for the online space as a Hole. So you should include it, cuz, it could end up being one of the biggest Story of the Year. 4me689 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely correct that changes of ownership are not necessarily important. However, since the new owner has promised to significantly change how the platform operates, that is what has driven the huge amount of coverage worldwide of his takeover - and that coverage is what makes the event notable. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I mean we're talking about a platform that literally influences global discourse, free speech and even democracy itself. It now has the richest person in history at its helm, who looks set to fundamentally alter its course. This isn't like the buying of Spotify or some dating app like Tinder. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changes of ownership are common & we don't usually include them. There are many social networking sites which have a higher number of users. Musk being the world's richest person doesn't make his purchase inherently important. It's received a lot of international media coverage because he's a high-profile, fairly controversial person who seeks it. Him saying he's going to make major changes to Twitter doesn't necessarily mean that he will. We don't include things based on promises/claims/speculation. We also don't include things because they receive a lot of media coverage. If we did, we'd include the minor attacks on Chris Rock & Dave Chappelle, as well as many reactions to those overpublicised events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying this ("We also don't include things because they receive a lot of media coverage.") and it's simply not true - if there is sustained international in-depth coverage that's exactly the metric we use to include things. And this story has that coverage (it's still going a week later), unlike your other examples. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Chris Rock-Will Smith slap received weeks of continuous, frequent media (including social media) coverage, including reactions from a ridiculous number of organisations & celebrities giving their opinions on the 'momentous' event. Some social media channels made & released their own series of videos during late March as well as April about it. Of all the events that have happened in the world this year, only the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine & the COVID-19 pandemic have received more media coverage. Using media coverage as a measure of importance, that slap was the third most important thing that happened in the world in 2022. However, no-one could genuinely say it was among the hundred most important events. We don't include the slap, nor should we. If Musk didn't have a high profile, there wouldn't be as much media coverage, nor support to include it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're continuing to conflate celebrity gossip and lightweight media (the Rock story was pretty much gone from heavyweight media in 48 hours) with heavy and sustained coverage in actual news sources (Musk's takeover was a week ago and there are new stories today in the Guardian, Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Independent, Al Jazeera, Fortune, CNN, CNBC and that's just the English language sources on the first two pages of the news results. Just to re-iterate; that's a week-old story still getting new coverage in the highest quality of sources. Black Kite (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, guys. Jim Michael is the only one arguing against inclusion. me, Wjfox2005, and Black Kite want inclusion, because Twitter can influence World politics, and it's one of the biggest social media platforms. This section should have a consensus already, and the consensus is 3 - 1 for inclusion. This section is about the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, not jim Michael versus black kite, the acquisition of Twitter is different than the slapping of Chris Rock, the latter happens every few award shows, and doesn't influence politics what so ever, the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk will influence politics a lot in the future, TDKR Chicago 101, and TheScrubby have not responded yet, but I would really love to see their opinion on this. 4me689 (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that Musk buying Twitter will influence politics a lot in the future is mere speculation. We don't know how he'll change it; saying he'll make major changes is mere assumption. Many businesspeople, politicians, writers, sportspeople, entertainers etc. say they're going to do things but don't. This story is merely rich businessman buys big company, which happens frequently. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the story was simply "rich businessesman buys big company" it would have died a death in the media by now. As I pointed out above, it hasn't (indeed the amount of coverage in serious heavyweight media has actually increased). This is obviously notable, regardless of what Musk does with the company. Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Michael is correct though when he invokes WP:CRYSTAL - and on that basis I think it would be wise to hold off on including the event until in due time the takeover has proven to lead to changes of significant consequence. At the same time, it is also absolutely correct that Twitter in this day and age is a platform of great consequence and influence as argued by Black Kite, among others. Overall though, in light of both of these factors, count me as Neutral. TheScrubby (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable. I'm happy to wait until "significant consequence" is proven. If leaning, it would be for inclusion. The Voivodeship King (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that waiting is wise. We should revisit in six months. agtx 21:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean include or exclude it for the next 6 months? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, what happens in six months is actually irrelevant here, as the intense media coverage that makes this notable enough to post is happening now. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If media coverage is the measure of notability, Depp v. Heard is one of the most important events in the world this year, and this decade. It's receiving intense, sustained, international media coverage - in quality as well as low-brow media outlets. However, no-one would seriously claim it's any more than a domestic event which is receiving disproportionately high media coverage because of the 2 main participants' fame. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
unlike the acquisition of Twitter, Depp v. Heard is a local event that has absolutely has no effect on world politics and belongs in 2022 in the United States. I said it earlier, the acquisition of Twitter will influence World politics in a big way in the future, as now these days Twitter has very big power in world politics. 4me689 (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only if Musk makes major changes to it. You're assuming he will, as though if he says he'll do something, he certainly will. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Depp v Heard has no effect on anything except Depp and Heard, and the coverage is merely "this is what happened in court today", as opposed to the seriously in-depth analysis in heavywieght press of the Twitter story. Black Kite (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m in favor of keeping the Twitter acquisition here. Twitter isn’t some little know startup company, it’s extremely influential in our respective societies and Musk (being one of, if not the richest man in the world) purchased this influential company that made headlines globally I think is worth a mention. I think it’s kind of weird to compare the acquisition to “the slap” because sure it was more talked about in social life than the acquisition but it won’t really have much on an impact later on. I think the twitter acquisition is worth mentioning here (as I already believe we’re getting a little too picky about what’s warranted for inclusion in this article). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would we be considering including this if the buyer were a billionaire who isn't controversial & doesn't have such a high profile, such as Bernard Arnault, Warren Buffett or Larry Page? Anything involving Musk - whether it be his business deals, his personal life or even what he says - is given a great deal of media attention. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of the discussion here assumes that it's a done deal, but it's in increasing doubt, and we don't include possible events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly think we should remove this, and the MS/Activision announcement. Both will be being removed at some point in the future anyway: If the buy-out happens, we'll remove the announcements as the actual event will be more relevant. If the buy-out doesn't happen, we'll remove the announcement because an announcement about something that never happened isn't important enough. JeffUK (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Keed

is Lil Keed notable enough for inclusion??? any thoughts, I'll leave it up to talk page first before I give my opinion. 4me689 (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is fully detailed, I don't see any notability outside the US. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude due to him having very little international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is a clear cut case where it belongs in 2022 deaths in the United States. Exclude. TheScrubby (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude, Lil keed does not have either a Billboard Hot 100 number one single, and/or a Grammy, he has none of those, so exclude him. 4me689 (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude. Never even heard of him until his death was announced. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude, my condolences to the family and friend but he was not notable enough. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death section pictures for May

there has just been room open up for a second image in may, though there is a lot contenders. here's a couple of contenders.

what should get the first and second pictures, and what is the order of the pictures any thoughts 4me689 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 presidents are currently there. They're from the same field, so one should be replaced with the scientist or the musician. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to go with one of the world leaders, I would go with Kravchuk 4me689 (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think in due time once there's more space for additional photos (three at minimum), we ought to include both Kravchuk and Khalifa. But for now, I think it is essential to prioritise Khalifa over Kravchuk, given that he was a incumbent leader who had served 17 years in office. As for the second photo, while I think Mottelson is more deserving, due to a lack of space we should prioritise Vangelis for the time being. TheScrubby (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June Brown

Add June Brown to list of deaths? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed due to a lack of international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reason. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Whilst EastEnders is indeed syndicated worldwide, it is mostly to countries with a British diaspora and thus the international notability aspect is diluted somewhat. Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She has an entry on the 1927 page for her birth. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't, and shouldn't. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would be appropriate to include her death in this article. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, she should be removed from 1927. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Michael 2 She's there, you just have to F5 it. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to a lack of international notability. as per TheScrubby, Jim Michael, and Black Kite. 4me689 (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, EastEnders is very local with no international significance. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect article?

During recent weeks, this article has been vandalised many times, and frequently had people & things added to it which are nowhere near notable enough to include. This has included blanking, obsessive fans repeatedly adding people & trolls writing insults. It has also included the nuisance who repeatedly asks 'what if 2020 was a person?', who is so persistent that he created an article relating to that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support this proposal - and am amazed it hasn't been done already as it is. TheScrubby (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, that's a great idea, especially since in recent days this page has seen an uptick of vandalism and unnecessary revisions. 4me689 (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since writing this, the person who repeatedly writes nonsense about 2020 being a person using various IPs has vandalised both this article (using a deliberately very misleading edit summary) & its talk page, using yet another IP. Should this talk page also be semi-protected? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's a good idea to semi protect this page, because we don't want more people doing it. though I don't know if the "2020 was a person" thing is only one person or just multiple people doing it. any proof??? 4me689 (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 2020 vandal is clearly one person, who knows his additions are highly inappropriate. All the edits on that have been recent, are written in the same way & on the same articles. There are bad edits by others as well, but they're very different to his. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't generally protect talk pages unless there is serious and persistent vandalism (i.e. BLP violations), because if there article is semi-protected you then prevent people from posting semi-protected requests for changes to the article. Even in the rare case that it *is* done, an unprotected subpage is usually created. The disruption here is not anywhere near the levels that are required for a talkpage protection. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but please semi-protect this article. The number of bad edits to it recently have been far more frequent than average. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What would the semi-protection of the article entail? The Voivodeship King (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An admin would limit editing to autoconfirmed accounts. Yesterday, I asked Deb to do that. She instead applied a lower level of protection - pending changes - to the article, which means that edits need to be accepted by autoconfirmed accounts. That'll reduce the number of bad edits, but as you can see the vandal who frequently writes nonsense about 2020 is still targeting this talk page (which is unprotected), as well as other articles. He frequently changes IP; some of those he has used have been blocked. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected the talkpage for a week until our childish friend gets bored. Can't use any other method as they're using wide, unblockable ranges. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include normal national elections automatically in all cases?

Looking at other sources of 'major events in 20xx' it's rare to see them including national elections that are just normal democratic elections. I know there's an argument that 'changing leadship has an effect on foreign policy and therefore on world politics' but I think this is a little weak to class these events as on-topic for this article automatically. I don't know if they always need to be listed; i.e. should it not be at least interesting to the reader for some reason other than 'the scheduled election takes place, without any particular controversy or international implication'? We already have List of elections in 2022, so I don't think duplicating entirely the content of that article here is necessary. JeffUK (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They take up a substantial proportion of we include them even when it's a re-election of the same party & leader. That's disproportionate prominence. Most of them can't reasonably be considered to be among the most important events of the year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the re-elections on the page currently are not significant enough to be included, but what about transfer of power from one party to another? (Someone can always find some reason a certain election is 'unprecedented' (XKCD)!) JeffUK (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus

Multinational corporations often pull out of countries. We don't include the large majority of those instances in main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're notable in aggregate, was wondering if we could somehow compress these into one line somewhere. Maybe in the lead sentence about the russia/ukraine war? JeffUK (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notable enough in total, but none of them are important enough to be individually mentioned on here. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the lead, I think this now allows for them to be removed. I think the fact we have over a thousand companies withdrawing per Corporate_responses_to_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine actually strengthens the case for not having a handful cherry-picked US based corporations in the body. JeffUK (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it makes no sense to include a small minority of them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
strong agree with both of you. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per User:Dunutubble and User:Wjfox2005 's recent edits I believe this also encompasses UEFA and FIFA (Both also multinational corporations, and both mentioned in the linked Corporate_responses_to_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine article. Even without these there are still far too many entries here for the Russia/Ukraine war here that are about the belligerents only, or minor regional developments (we don't have per-battle reports for any other war, ever.) For the 2003 Iraq war we have '1. The war starts.' 2.Saddam is captured' This seems much more appropriate for this sort of article. Russia is mentioned 123 times in 2022 article, and it's only June! JeffUK (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then. Delete everything I spent hours researching, adding, editing, and formatting. I won't bother contributing to these pages anymore. It just isn't worth my time and effort, when people are so rabidly in favour of deleting everything, and seem to positively salivate over creating the most boring, uninformative, and sterile articles possible. The fact that you'd prefer literally two entries ("start" and "finish") for the most important conflict since WW2 says it all really. I enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia and trying to create an informative, well-cited timeline of events, which I believed would interest and inform people looking for an overview of each year. But apparently it's more important that these articles are continually hacked down to the most basic, bare-bones level. That isn't something I can take part in anymore, and I'm tired of continually trying to maintain this page's content, amid the onslaught of deletions. So I'm sorry to say but I think I'm finally done here. Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Korean War, Vietnam War & Iraq War are each significantly more important, and they don't have close to the level of detail in main year articles that this does.
As several editors have said, much of what you add is for year by country/topic articles rather than main year. We're not criticising the quality of your work & don't have anything against you. You're taking personally the removal/reversion of some of your edits, even though I don't take into account who added info, only its content. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the 'most important conflict since WWII', it's the most televised, in the grand scheme of things it's a relatively minor, slow-burning, bi-lateral conflict, involving fewer injuries, fewer deaths, and less territory being taken over than many wars in the last 10 years let alone 70. My view is that readers looking for this article will be looking for an easily readable broad summary of the major events of a year that is not interlaced with a near day-by-day timeline of not-particularly-remarkable 'events' in one specific local conflict. People interested in 'what happened in 2022' want to know the russian/ukraine conflict happened, maybe a handful of key events, in the knowledge they can read the Timeline_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine for day-by-day accounts of what happened, and detailed information about the conflict on the articles linked from this very page. JeffUK (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a great deal of detail in main year articles for three wars - the two world wars & the current one in Ukraine. The latter is on nothing like the same scale, so to have so much detail is very disproportionate. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2016 doesn't mention Russian book ban in Ukraine, 1974 doesn't have Jackson-Vanik amendment, 2018 doesn't have DASKA, etc.
Most sanctions aren't notable for main year pages, and most of these against Russia/Belarus aren't either. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whisky War

One of the world's most trivial international border disputes on a very small, remote, cold, uninhabited location. We don't include most territorial disputes on main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be included, it's notable and reported enough, and per List_of_national_border_changes_(1914–present) there is very rarely more than one per year and actually many border changes have been included in recent years. India-Bangladesh in 2010, Azerbaijan in 2015 (not directly but it's part of the October 10 cease fire), Russia/Crimea in 2014. JeffUK (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's only the conclusion that's been widely reported, and even then only briefly. Hans Island is tiny, barren & uninhabited; it's in a remote Arctic location. It's not in a strategic location like Gibraltar. Azerbaijan & Crimea's changes are the result of military action between countries which hate each other; this isn't. The number of deaths & injuries in the 'Whisky War' is zero. Relations between Canada & Denmark remained good throughout the dispute. There's no chance that 2022 will ever be well-known for the end of this dispute & it can't seriously be argued that it's one of the most important events of the year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Canada and Denmark now border each other. Before that they only had land borders with the US and Germany respectively. I think that could hold some important consequences.
Also, Hans Island might not be important on the level of Gibraltar but that doesn't mean it's not strategic. One of the reasons why the dispute was notable is because Hans Island could be a major post for Arctic/Northwest Passage shipping routes in the near future, what with climate change and all. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting trivia, suited to 2022 in Canada, 2022 in Denmark and DYK, but not a main year article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with JeffUK, changes in borders are rare, even more rare in the Americas where it's normally peaceful. 4me689 (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rarity doesn't usually increase notability. If this ended an actual war between countries it'd be important, but this is was always a trivial dispute between 2 countries who've always had good relations. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you're just making it seem like it happens every year, the fact that has happened is rare 4me689 (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many international border disputes are ongoing, and most years include at least one starting &/or concluding somewhere. This is one of the more trivial. We've excluded various types of events which were argued for on the basis that they're unusual. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is trivial, but a change in international borders is notable to me. The Voivodeship King (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo López Death

They should add his death in the June 2022 section of the year, or at least his prison break in May. They did for the Alcatez Prison escape in 1962. 2603:8080:7D07:7700:ED71:8E6B:1D6A:E9DF (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's internationally notable enough for here. He's on 2022 deaths in the United States. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haven;t heard a thing about this. Agree with Jim Michael in not including. The Voivodeship King (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
also agree with Jim Michael. this person isn't notable, even if he is currently escaped from prison. 4me689 (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they make books, movies and TV shows about his escape in the future, it may well become significant enough to add. As it stands it's just one of many hundreds of prison escapes that no-doubt happen each year. I do think it could be added to 2022 in the United States JeffUK (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roe V Wade Overturning

Should this be added in the main article? I already added it to 2022 in the United States and feel a mention may be appropiate here considering the magnitude, international reaction, and the fact that events related to abortion legality for other countries are mentioned in other years such as 2018's abortion referendum in Ireland which legalized it there. PaulRKil (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

Include, it may be important for other countries when it comes to their choice of abortion rights. 4me689 (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude - for now it is a purely domestic political development that has quite rightly been included on Year In Topic. Any speculation about impact on other countries would be WP:CRYSTAL. TheScrubby (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude - I do think it's a significant if a previously free country largely bans abortion, as it's clearly recognised as a significant step backward in terms of human rights. Currently that has not happened; this ruling only lays the path for it to possibly happen. Currently this is a technical ruling, not a direct change in the law, and has lead to abortion becoming illegal in 3-6 states, a small minority. (Per https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/06/13-states-have-abortion-trigger-bans-heres-what-happens-when-roe-overturneds) I think it should be included if abortion becomes illegal in say more than 10 states. e.g." The United States Supreme Court rules that there is no Constitutional right to abortion. Abortion will become illegal in x states within y days" . JeffUK (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Include – I don't consider this "purely" domestic. It's clearly a major precedent, which has provoked an intense, worldwide reaction, with many leaders and international organisations condemning it, and is therefore a notable event for 2022. Can't we have some flexibility here? Wjfox2005 (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would we say the same thing if an equivalent event happened in any other country? I'm a firm believer in not giving any country preferential treatment when it comes to what is included here. America is not the centre of the world. TheScrubby (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be included if a country where abortion was previously legal bans it outright (or nearly outright) nationally, or in a significant part of the country; that would be an important reversal in a trend toward liberalisation, I have just added the change in law in Poland to the 2021 article. However that's not what this ruling does in the US (yet!) I think it actually effects a ban in 3 states so far, that's a domestic issue. Most of the states with 'Trigger Laws' still have to choose to enact those laws (or could stop them coming into effect). If they all do change the law I think this date does become significant enough to include, but per WP:Crystal we can wait until we know. JeffUK (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
America isn't the "centre" of the world, but like it or not, is clearly more important and influential than many other countries (I'm not American, FWIW). Its political, economic, and cultural changes often have international effects. If this ruling had occurred in, say, Kiribati, I doubt many people would have noticed. We had this same argument last year over the Capitol attack, which was included on 6 January 2021, and reached a consensus for inclusion. Surely the point of these year articles is to include events that receive worldwide attention, or are particularly notable in some way. The Roe v Wade decision isn't some minor piece of legislation, it's a historic and fundamental change, and the ripple effects can be seen from the reactions of leaders around the world, alongside human rights organisations, and many others. The Pope, for example, just said that it "challenges the whole world." I agree that most country-level events are only domestic, but in rare cases we can make an exception, and I believe this is one of those cases. Another example would be South Africa's ending of apartheid in 1990. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A technical change that gives states the right to legislate on abortion is not, at this stage, comparable to the ending of Apartheid. If the 'ripple effects' happen as predicted, and this does lead to women in a significant number of states losing their access to abortion services , I agree that this should be included.
The Vatican's 'Academy for Life' said '[the ruling] challenged the whole world to reflect' not the Pope; they're the 'pro-life' press-office so it's unsurprising that they commented. JeffUK (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude this, as well as other changes in domestic law, regardless of where in the world they happen. There's international media coverage, praise, criticism etc., but that's happened in relation to laws on this matter being changed in other countries, as well as many other changes in domestic laws. It's nowhere near the level of the abolition of apartheid, because that involved many international organisations, internationally notable people, boycotts, sanctions etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Include A major western "democracy" removing the rights of 50% of its population (as well as suggesting they are going to go further - i.e. gay marriage) is a massively influential issue, it isn't front page news in many other countries than the US for no reason. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic events becoming front page news in many countries is commonplace & doesn't make the events international. Any suggestions/speculations about other, also domestic things doesn't make it international. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude - Unless the "father's" lack of any rights in this topic, is mentioned. In other words 'My money, my choice' in reflection of 'My body, my choice'. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you actually mean to post this misogynistic diatribe, or was it a mistake? I've seen you post some nonsense before, but this is spectacularly terrible. Noted, anyway (though I actually considered removing it as a personal attack on 50% of the population). Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude, it is only the US, and in the US itself it only affect laws in part of the states. Most of the highly populated states will continue to have open abortions. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it hasn't made abortion illegal across the US. It's less important than major changes in abortion laws in some other countries which changed their national laws. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
exactly. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude per all above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am for Inclusion. The event itself is domestic, but the effect is further. The United States is the world's largest Superpower and, as such, sets a precedent for much of the Western world. Such a precedent has an international effect. In Australia (my location), the case and verdict has been discussed on the news on several occasions and discussed that the verdict could have a significant impact on Australian abortion rights. Other landmark decisions are definitely notable, such as Dred Scott v. Sandford (sic.) or Brown v. Board of Education. The Voivodeship King (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's entirely appropriate to make comparisons between this decision and those to do with the Civil Rights movement (on top of the anti-Apartheid movement, as previously mentioned by other users here). Plus I think any notion of international effect r.e. precedent is greatly exaggerated - in so many ways (particularly when you look at the rest of the Western world) the US is an outlier rather than an influencer when it comes to political decisions - whether it be regarding gun control, or the use of capital punishment, among many other issues. This is no exception. To add this decision onto the main page would be Americentrism, and once again speculation about long-term international impact (rather than immediate worldwide news coverage/reaction) would be WP:CRYSTAL. I'm also from Australia, for the record. TheScrubby (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand; we have included mainly domestic events for other countries this year. So.... The Canada Convoy Protests, Legal proceedings regarding the conviction of the perpetuaters of the November 2015 attacks in Paris, 2601:204:CF01:1840:6029:F525:DD06:38E1 (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Domestic events including this & the Canada convoy protest shouldn't be included. The November 2015 Paris attacks are internationally notable, but I don't think the trials, convictions & sentencing are important enough for this article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Ireland shown as Ireland

Is it alright to show the Republic of Ireland, as Ireland? Example [Republic of Ireland|Ireland]. Nobody's claiming the country covers the whole island. They just happen to have the same name. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I originally reverted this, I've since done some reading, and as it's standard practice to use [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] in Ireland-related articles to refer to the country, per MOS:IRELAND; and 'Ireland' is the officially internationally recognised name.. AND it's clear we're talking about the country Ireland in this context, I think 'Ireland' is better. Having said that I'm not sure that a scheduled change of PM is actually significant enough for this article. JeffUK (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We include elections. A change of leader is the common effect of elections, therefore a scheduled change is also notable. The Voivodeship King (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should include ALL elections after the fact (see above discussion) a peaceful transition of power in Ireland is (thankfully) not notable any more. However the 'upcoming events' section doesn't have anything like the problems of size that the main 'events' section has so we can have that discussion when it becomes history! JeffUK (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Taruskin should be on the Main List.

He garnered many awards from international organizations in his field of work, Musicology.

And he has a very detailed obituary from the NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/arts/music/richard-taruskin-dead.html 2601:204:CF01:1840:957:FEB2:BDD5:9747 (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should Technoblade be included under Deaths?

There has been a small ongoing edit war adding and removing the former Minecraft Youtuber Technoblade (real name Alexander) from the deaths section, after his recently announced passing on June 30. I personally support his inclusion on this page, as he has been considered to be notable enough to be put in the recent deaths section on the main page after review of the page. I do not want to add or remove him from the section without a consensus through. Cheers! --Johnson524 (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

exclude. it's too early to see what impact he may have right now, technoblade was a massive YouTuber indeed. with over 12 million subscribers. however he wasn't eligible for a Wikipedia page until the day he died. with is Wikipedia page being that young I don't think it's time to add him right now. also he wasn't as big as Dream and/ or mr beast, maybe this will change in a couple years if books and movies get made about him. it's to early to tell. so right now, just exclude him for now. 4me689 (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So Technoblade actually did have a page before his passing, but it was deleted (twice actually on two different dates far apart) because there was not enough major sources that cited what he had done. The page is now in the mainspace because after his passing; outlets like CNN, New York Times, Insider, etc. reported his passing, giving the article the push it needed to stay. The point I am trying to make is that it is not like he was not notable enough to warrant his own article before his passing, there just was no major news outlets reporting on him. -- Johnson524 (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I did not know that, will I'll change my opinion to neutral, with YouTube only existing for 16 years, and most of the sites creators being young. there has not been much of a talk for YouTubers inclusion in death sections in main year articles cuz not many big YouTubers have died, with technoblade being one of the first big YouTubers to die. so I know this is probably going to be a pretty heated argument in the talk section as no boundaries for YouTuber deaths have been set on these type of articles. 4me689 (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely true not many major youtubers have passed since the launching of the app. I'm not a really big Technoblade fan myself, but seeing as this kind of thing has not been discussed yet to my knowledge on the talk page, I wanted to at least bring it up. Thanks for understanding where I was coming from and for replying! I appreciate it 🙂 Johnson524 (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's unlikely, because if there were no sources commenting on him before his death, then his death - unless a notable event in itself - doesn't suddenly make him notable per WP:BLP1E. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes more sense, I agree with Jim Michael, Black Kite, and TheScrubby on exclusion. in terms of inclusion standards he has little notability. we're not excluding him because we hate him, we're excluding him cuz he does not fit the criteria for notability for inclusion, which Jim Michael summed up well. and like I said, YouTube is only 16 years old, and because YouTube is only existed for that shot period Of time, the criteria for including YouTubers is pretty vague. 4me689 (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude - my condolences to his family, and it is of course always an incredible tragedy for somebody to be taken by cancer at an age when their life is only beginning, but in what universe is this person remotely internationally notable enough for inclusion here? TheScrubby (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - @TheScrubby: I would say he is pretty internationally notable as within one day of the pages re-launch, the page has been translated into 17 different languages. --Johnson524 (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that merely indicates he has fans in many countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between "has many fans in many countries" and 'international support'? That being said, I am not going to try to push this through to make sure he gets included, that is really not all that important to me, I just wanted to make a consensus to stop the edit war going on as I mentioned in my first message. I wish you all the best 🙂 Johnson524 (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
International notability is required for inclusion on a main year article, which means major achievements in multiple countries. For example, an actor or filmmaker who has won an Academy Award and a BAFTA Award. Many thousands of people have fans in multiple countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to note the Main Page RD accepts any article subject to sufficient quality - notability is not taken into account (though if an article looks seriously non-notable it may be sent to AfD, which bars it from ITN while the discussion is ongoing). As I said there, I'm pretty sure someone who didn't even have an article until the day he sadly died doesn't pass international notability standards. Black Kite (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude due to a lack of international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Obviously no. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude. But I wouldn't oppose him being mentioned on 2022 in the United States. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prolific entertainers

Why should entertainers who have little or no international notability, including Ray Liotta & James Caan, be included? Those two have few awards & none which aren't American. We rarely include prolific, domestic entertainers from other countries. The deaths are reported by many other countries because they have fans there. We don't include events & deaths due to international media coverage, because the same argument could be made for including Depp v. Heard, a domestic case which was widely reported by the international media, including quality outlets. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • When nearly *every* heavyweight news source *in the world* is printing your obituary (the vast majority being a properly written one by a arts or culture journalist, not a copied and pasted AP one), as in the case of James Caan, I think we can safely say that your notability is international. Heavyweight/quality news sources aren't "fans" of people, they report what they believe to be important. And that's exactly what they've done - the death of an important actor. If we don't take "international media coverage" into account when looking at deaths or events, then we actually have no reliable metric of actually determining international notability. Black Kite (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those sources also extensively reported Depp v. Heard. We do have other metrics, which for actors is primarily awards. We rightly included Sidney Poitier & William Hurt on the basis of their awards. It's highly unlikely that we'd include a domestic entertainer from a Spanish-speaking country who has fans in other Spanish-speaking countries & whose death is therefore reported by many media outlets in those countries as well as his/her own. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I said global obituaries for Caan, not just ones from the Anglosphere. We would almost certainly include a domestic entertainer from a Spanish-speaking country if they had the same coverage as Caan has. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Shinzo Abe

This has no apparent international angle. Being a former head of state/gov means he's notable enough to be included in Deaths, but his assassination is a domestic event. If we included all deaths that are widely reported in the international media, we'd include the killing of Gabby Petito & the murder of Sarah Everard. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I fully support inclusion - given that this is the assassination of not just any political figure, but somebody who was the longest-serving PM of Japan and one of the most significant world leaders of the 21st century up to now. Not to mention that he was still an active, high-profile politician who was literally giving a speech in the middle of an election campaign when the assassination occurred. If say, Barack Obama or Bill Clinton were to be assassinated today, nobody would raise a peep about its inclusion either. TheScrubby (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm consistent & would oppose the inclusion of the domestic killing of any former head of state/gov. No election is required in response. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not just any politician or an assassination of someone anonymous, but the assassination of a former prime minister of a G7 country, one of the most important politicians in Japan's modern history and the longest-serving premier to leave office not even two years ago. For me the assassination must be included. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Include. You can't be serious, Jim. He was the former leader of one of the world's most powerful and influential countries, and its longest serving leader, he's suffered a violent death, and there's wall-to-wall coverage on practically every news outlet in every country around the world right now. Please stop this ridiculous crusade of yours to delete everything, it's becoming unbelievably tiresome. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a domestic event that has a lot of international coverage. I'd be in favour of including it if the suspect were an agent of another country's government or a member of an international terrorist group. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well we don't know that... yet.
The investigation is still un going. 73.12.209.248 (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, include. If the violent assassination of the longest-serving leader of one of the G7 countries isn't internationally notable, nothing is. In the UK it even knocked the Boris Johnson omnishambles off the top of the news pages. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Businesspeople

What should be the inclusion bar for businesspeople? Many have international reach to varying extents. Is Leonardo del Vecchio internationally notable enough? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022&oldid=1097080158"