Talk:2022/Archive 5

Robb Elementary School shooting (Result: exclusion)

Should the Robb Elementary School shooting be listed? I understand that mass shootings are all too common in the U.S., but one at an elementary school (with over 19 deaths; 18 children) is pretty rare. Sandy Hook is listed in 2012 and Parkland shooting is listed in 2018, the Robb shooting already exceeds the death toll of Parkland. Just curious about input, I know this might get heated. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

None of them should be included, because they're domestic events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking in terms if this can't be posted then Sandy Hook and Parkland shootings shouldn't be either. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It's common for things to be added to main year articles which shouldn't be. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• After seeing the international reactions, high death count and though a common tragic event in the U.S., I feel that Stoneman Douglas and Sandy Hook do merit inclusion in their respective years and so should this one. Count me in as Include. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely exclude. Of course these shootings are always tragic, but firstly they are purely domestic and secondly they happen so regularly in the United States. Unless it leads to meaningful change in the US, I don’t think they’d meet the bar - and even if it did, it’d be a borderline inclusion at most because it would still be domestic. TheScrubby (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Columbine should also be excluded. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I think Columbine is the exception here, it made major headlines worldwide and of course spawned films etc., whereas nowadays US school shootings get a few headlines and then disappear. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Columbine should be kept. In addition to the points put forwards by Black Kite, I should note that it helped inspire mass shootings around the world , such as in the Kerch Polytechnic College massacre and the Erfurt school massacre. (See also here) Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Exclude. Domestic incident. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Include. Years can have domestic events, so you should add this to the article. There is nothing wrong with this. 76.20.110.116 (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

We have Year in Topic for a reason. Otherwise, why bother having pages such as 2022 in the United States? TheScrubby (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This may be a reason, but it gained attention throughout international and global. It also sparked some new measures. 76.20.110.116 (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

International coverage doesn't equate international notability - that's something which has been firmly established here for well over a year. As for "new measures", it is far too soon to make such a claim, and at this stage borders on WP:CRYSTAL. If this event leads to meaningful gun reform in the United States (as the Port Arthur massacre did in Australia), then we could revisit this and maybe include this as a borderline case. TheScrubby (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Include There are many and tons of reasons why it should be included. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Include because of the high death toll and the media coverage. I wouldn't completely call it domestic, as it also seems to have had an impact, albeit devoloping, on Mexico–United States relations. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I agreed with you more, it had gain attention nationally and there are tons of new sources out there. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

safe2say, I now think inclusion, I now say inclusion because a lot of world leaders are talking about it. it's safe to say that a lot of people outside the United States are talking about it after all. I no longer think that it's a domestic event. I now think it's worldwide news. I think you can 100% no longer say that it's a domestic event. 4me689 (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Many events have a lot of media coverage & talk. World leaders have given statements after many domestic attacks/disasters. They don't make it internationally notable. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

you always think everything's not notable 4me689 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Include. Yes, shootings in America are common, but this is the horrific barbarity of gunning down innocent small children, attacking them for no reason but just out of hate of humanity. This is a very significant event. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  But the shooting itself has no impact on global affairs.

  The main article is supposed to be about global events, or events that have significant impact between countries. 73.12.209.248 (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Disagreed, any event can be included within an article no matter how local, national, or global it is. It is digital evolution, not limited. 76.20.110.116 (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Not in main year articles; they're for important, international events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know how many times this needs to be said, but to all those who are saying include, international coverage doesn’t equate international notability. In response to StellarNerd, yes it was a horrific event but we don’t include events based on our own emotional reactions - we include them based on international notability and significance. It is way too soon for this event to be deemed one of international notability, given how many mass shootings there are in the US and how none of them really led to change in the US. It would be WP:CRYSTAL to add the event because one assumes this’ll lead to any change of international consequence. It is also wildly inappropriate that one of the users deleted the note on the 2022 page and added this event anyway without any firm consensus in favour of inclusion. This event simply doesn’t meet the bar at all - though again, we can always revisit it if it does indeed prove to have international consequence. TheScrubby (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, any event can be added in to year articles if they recently happened, since there are many sources and newspapers are the sources. So the list can be longer to help a lot of people. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It certainly shouldn't. Making the articles much longer isn't the goal of main year articles, which are for international events. There are many subarticles for domestic events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

To add to what Jim Michael has said, it's been demonstrated by several users over the last year especially that we actually need to be more selective with what should be deemed relevant for these pages, and that recent year pages especially have easily exceeded the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article. TheScrubby (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

One of the arguments for including this is that some victims were (likely) foreign nationals. However, that's true of many domestic attacks, disasters etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This massacre has riveted the world media for now nearly a week. It's a significant event on a global scale. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident & Depp v. Heard have received a huge amount of international media coverage for a lot longer. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude per all above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  But honestly, it had gained international attention throughout media and the location. There are tons of reliable sources including the television news. -- 76.20.110.116 (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

No-one's disputing that it has received a lot of international media coverage, but that doesn't make it internationally notable. The same goes for Smith-Rock & Depp-Heard. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude Yes it is a tragic and barbaric shooting, but it doesn't affect much in global affairs. It is a purely domestic event. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Tennis (Result: Djokovic borderline inclusion and Wimbledon exclusion)

As we don't usually include any tennis tournaments, it makes no sense to include Novak Djokovic being deported from Australia & not able to defend his Australian Open title, nor the banning of Russian & Belarusian players from The Championships, Wimbledon. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Jim, have you considered finding another hobby in life? i.e. something that doesn't involve deleting everything on Wikipedia, which you seem utterly obsessed with, to a frankly bizarre extent. Seriously, give it a rest. Anyway, 2022 and indeed all years should provide a decent "overview" of the year's main events, to inform people looking back on them in the future. Djokovic and his deportation case received MASSIVE, WORLDWIDE news coverage, making it clearly a notable event for this year. I believe that's all that needs to be said on this matter. Wjfox2005 (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Part of the comment striked for violating the No Personal Attacks policy.Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 03:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Have you considered not adding so many insufficiently notable events & people to main year articles? You claim that the problem is me removing them, but I'm one of several editors who frequently remove insufficiently notable things, including those which you've added/reinstated. The biggest problem with main year articles is the additions of what shouldn't be on them. I don't remove most things, let alone everything.

Djokovic is the best singles player in a sport which has millions of fans across many countries. That's why the media reported it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Personally, anything that gets "global" coverage is worth mentioning here, so I think Djokovic's deportation is worth mentioning. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

On that basis, the Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident & Depp v. Heard should be included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Jim is doing a good job, and always seeks consensus before removing any content. We must take care to ensure that Year in topic is as less country-centrist as possible and not just another news portal. He doesn't need to search for "another hobby in life". We must insist that international coverage ≠ international notability. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and we don't usually include who won the grand slams because tennis is considered to be insufficiently internationally notable for main year articles. Therefore, it makes no sense to include who can't enter them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

We already have the 2022 in tennis page. That would be the appropriate venue to include an entry on Djokovic. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 03:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

And the banning of Russian & Belarusian players from Wimbledon. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to present my points... in points.

1) Novak Djokovic has won 20 Grand Slam titles. Therefore, he is notable.

2) The most often case in which people are deported are illegal immigrants and various smugglers. These people are (bar a select few) not notable.

3) If a notable person had an action taken against them (deportation) that almost no other notable people have had happen to them, that is a departure from the norm.

4) Based on Point 3, I find it notable that a notable person was deported. His inability to defend his title is not notable, so I'm fine losing that tidbit.

Thanks, The Voivodeship King (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see deportations as important enough, even if of internationally notable people, in unusual circumstances. The only exception would be if the deportee were a head of state/gov. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand your argument, but, as there are no written guidelines on the notability of deportation, I'm still in favour of inclusion. So far, its myself, Wjfox and TDKR Chicago for inclusion and Jim Michael, Alsoriano and Dunutubble. Can I get a tie-breaking vote from anyone? TheScrubby? PeaceInOurTime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Voivodeship King (talk • contribs) 11:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Consensus does not necessarily equate to a majority of votes; having said that I'm inclined to borderline include the deportation of Djokovic due to the international nature of the competition as well as the international political and diplomatic consequences of said deportation. As for the Russian & Belarusian players being banned from Wimbledon, the argument for inclusion is a lot weaker, but count me as neutral overall. TheScrubby (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If we included grand slams - and I'm not saying we should - then I'd be in favour of including the deportation of Djokovic & the banning of Russian & Belarusian players from Wimbledon. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the two are related whatsoever, It's a false dichotomy, an exceptional event featuring the sitting world champion tennis player can be on topic for this page even if tennis events are not normally included. This was an internationally notable event involving government-level actors, which was highly publicised and discussed at the top of government in multiple countries. JeffUK (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone want the banning of Russian & Belarusian players from Wimbledon to be included? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I think not, as always it's subjective but this was a unilateral decision made by a private organisation, not a government decision. Affected the 8th and 4th ranked players, not the world #1, and had significantly less coverage internationally. JeffUK (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of which players it affected, the banning was notable for a major (international) sporting event like this. Surely we can include non-govermental events on 2022. It is partly "political" in any case, as it has a damaging impact on both Russia's and Belarus's image and reputation. And googling the keywords "russia belarus banned tennis", I also believe it received sufficient news coverage to merit inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Angelo Sodano (Result: inclusion)

I think Angelo Sodano merits inclusion, he was the Vatican's longtime Sec. of State, influential cardinal within the church, a notable figure in the Church's sex scandal and was the Dean of the College of Cardinals for almost 15 years. I know we don't post cardinals that often here but I think Sodano makes an argument for inclusion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion, cuz what I can see from this dude, this dude was kind of important, though I think this is kind of borderline. 4me689 (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion He was Holy See's Secretary of State, the equivalent of "Prime Minister", so there is neither doubt nor debate. All of them should be included. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion See this AP article for more information about his general importance: Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 03:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no objections with his inclusion, yeah. My reservation is more with regards to image, which I don’t think he should necessarily take priority over other prominent figures who have passed this month. TheScrubby (talk) 07:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Exclude, because powerful in a very very small state with no army, well except the Swiss Guard, and with no territory to speak of isn't a reason to include. Would you include Nauru government ministers? Nauru is a bigger state than the Vatican. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Except, The Vatican isn't just a city state, it is the political arm of the Catholic Church which is one of the most influential insitutions in the world, When Sodano was secretary of State for the Holy See, he is essentially the vice pope for the Church. 73.12.209.248 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Jean Lèques (Result: exclusion)

President of New Caledonia briefly, but this is merely an overseas territory of France, not a country or state. His two-line article and the fact that Government of New Caledonia doesn't exist suggests that he shouldn't be included here. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Removed due to having no international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Move to 2022 in Oceania or 2022 in France. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with the swift decision to exclude. If New Caledonia was an independent nation, then this would be a completely different story. TheScrubby (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

exclude, as per TheScrubby, Dunutubble, and Jim Michael. 4me689 (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protect article? (Result: done)

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)

Strong support this proposal - and am amazed it hasn't been done already as it is. TheScrubby (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Support per nom. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

Support Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What would the semi-protection of the article entail? The Voivodeship King (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Death section pictures for May (Result: Leonid Kravchuk, Khalid bin Zayed Al Nahyan, and Vangelis)

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.

• 
  the 1st President of Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk
• 
  American-Danish Nobel nuclear physicist, Ben Roy Mottelson
• 
  2nd incumbent President of the United Arab Emirates, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan
• 
  Greek composer and musician, Vangelis

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)

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)

If I were to go with one of the world leaders, I would go with Kravchuk 4me689 (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

• Vangelis and Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Better pictures, and more lasting significance. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

June Brown (Result: exclusion)

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

Opposed due to a lack of international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reason. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

She has an entry on the 1927 page for her birth. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

She doesn't, and shouldn't. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Then it would be appropriate to include her death in this article. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

No, she should be removed from 1927. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Jim Michael 2 She's there, you just have to F5 it. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose due to a lack of international notability. as per TheScrubby, Jim Michael, and Black Kite. 4me689 (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, EastEnders is very local with no international significance. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Lil Keed (Result: exclusion)

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)

If the article is fully detailed, I don't see any notability outside the US. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Exclude due to him having very little international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Exclude. Never even heard of him until his death was announced. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Exclude per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Exclude, my condolences to the family and friend but he was not notable enough. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus (Result: exclusion)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, it makes no sense to include a small minority of them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

strong agree with both of you. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Whisky War (Result: inclusion)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Gonzalo López Death (Result: exclusion)

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)

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)

Haven;t heard a thing about this. Agree with Jim Michael in not including. The Voivodeship King (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Republic of Ireland shown as Ireland (Result: changed to just 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)

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)

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)

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)

Roe V Wade Overturning (Result: exclusion)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

exactly. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)