Talk:2022/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Best sources for 2022

I've been thinking about what are the WP:BESTSOURCES that would inform WP:PROPORTIONAL for the article 2022: i.e., the best "2022 in review" retrospectives/anthologies. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few that I think would make the cut, and a few that I have concerns about:

• Associated Press [1]
• Reuters [2]

I think these are the right quality (among the best available for current events) and scope (global) for a recent year like 2022. Are there any others?

Sources like The Times, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, etc., are high quality (and of course there are others of similar quality), but I'm concerned they will be too national in scope, and perhaps would be good sources for the national sub-articles, but not for the main year article.

Thoughts? Levivich (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing is important, but readers will choose what suits them & main year articles will become more Americentric & Westerncentric, something we've been fighting against & making progress in regard to for the past few years. Also, they'll be arguments about what to include. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that there's a problem with using Western news sources to document world events, as long as they're reliable for Wikipedia in general. As long as content is accurately described on Wikipedia and consistent with how it ois seen in RS's, full steam ahead. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

To add: Council on Foreign Relations [3] is a US think tank, but focused on international affairs. CNN is US media, but has an international year-in-review section [4]. I would tend to include a "year in review" if it's explicitly internationally-focused, even if it's by a "domestic" organization. Levivich (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that maybe the best way to achieve a "year in review" would be to document overall trends across the year within that lead prose section. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I take it that these reviews will guide events only, so how do we deal with births & deaths? Keep the criteria the same as they currently are until new consensuses are formed? Have a new discussion for each person there's disagreement about? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

With sources like "Final goodbye: Recalling influential people who died in 2022" and "Ten World Figures Who Died in 2022". (No idea what to do about births, which probably isn't even an encyclopedic topic.) Levivich (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Just get rid of them entirely, per the Village Pump discussion which you've already responded to. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

One source or multiple sources?

Whatever the #Best sources for 2022 are, should an entry be included if (1) it appears on any "year in review" WP:RS, or (2) it appears on multiple "year in review" WP:RSes? Option 2 would be stronger on WP:NPOV grounds, as having multiple RSes demonstrates that the event is considered broadly significant. However, it would lead to pretty short lists. Option 1 is more inclusive, and I think that being on even one "year in review" RS demonstrates that it's considered broadly significant, there are relatively few sources to work with (less than 10 year in review RSes with global scope?), and RSes are bound to disagree on what makes the cut. So in my view, if something is listed by AP but not Reuters, I'd include it here anyway, because we will probably have the room in the article. Levivich (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Multiple, because they'll inherently have different focuses in terms of topic, location etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

This sounds incredibly difficult to manage. I hope it's worth the effort. Deb (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Olympic medallists

For over a decade, winners of individual Olympic gold medals have been routinely included in main year articles. Should that still be the case? If not, which of them should be excluded? It makes no sense to exclude Viktor Mazin alone. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to births/deaths, I don't think medalists should be presumed to meet WP:WEIGHT. And I don't think there is systemic bias to be countered that would justify their automatic inclusion, esp. for the Winter Olympics. —Bagumba (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it is a reasonable assumption to say this is one of the few areas where everybody agrees, encompassing not only middle reformists like myself, but also active reformers like TBUA and international notability proponents like Scrubby. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Everyone doesn't agree. The long-standing consensus is that all individual Olympic gold medallists are included, yet Mazin alone has been repeatedly removed . If the inclusion bar is to be changed, what should it be? If it's not to be changed, what's the case for making an exception for him & only him? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's ultimately case by case. The Village Pump discussion on deaths in the first place is already looking like (at least so far) it will be consensus to remove deaths. If deaths remain ultimately though, it just depends. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree that individual gold medallists shouldn't automatically qualify for inclusion. Can we at least agree that multiple gold medallists should? Deb (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

My intention wasn't to single out Viktor, specifically; he was just the one closest to the top. I think we all agree that including deaths should be given WP:DUE regarding supposedly "international" (whatever that means) notability. Just because one competed at the Olympics does not mean one should be systematically included (especially when their page is literally just their birth, Olympic career, death with no context as to why they are internationally notable). Why? I Ask (talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

No-one's saying that all Olympians should be included; obviously the large majority shouldn't. We're talking about winners of individual Olympic golds. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

That's still not good enough. No general reader cares who won the gold medal for pigeon shooting, tug of war, or badminton, or whatever. Winning a gold medal is really cool, but over 2,000 people have done it; it's pretty much run-of-the-mill, especially when individual bios are only a paragraph long about their Olympic career. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not run-of-the-mill; Olympic golds are a very high achievement. Some sports are much more popular than others, so some of their people have much longer articles than others. We can't judge notability or inclusion on article length or volume of media coverage. Kim Kardashian's article is longer than Gene Hackman's. If they die during the same year, her death will receive much more media coverage than his. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

We can't judge "international" notability based on the number of international reliable sources? There are only like five non-database sources on the internet about this man (Russian and English included), and two are local obituaries. No offense, but he's not that notable. I think a good litmus test for "international" notability would be a minimum of five national-level reliable sources discussing their death (e.g., BBC, NYT, AP, RFI, etc.). Not every source has to be from a different country, though. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Representing their country on the world stage and winning a (individual) gold medal for their country in the most notable sports competition of all should be sufficient grounds for inclusion - and indeed has been the case around here for a long time. Discussions over Olympic medalists over the years (at least during the time I’ve been regularly involved) has only led to one substantial change, which is to exclude those who only won gold medals as part of a team rather than individually. TheScrubby (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Find me five national sources covering Gheorghe Berceanu's death. Should be easy if he's "internationally" notable, right? If the only manner to include Olympians is if they've garnered a gold medal versus actual media coverage, then why isn't someone like Fred Sersen included at the 1962 page? The Oscars are an international award, too. A systemic approach to anything without sources to back it up is stupid. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Sersen's Academy Awards weren't in major categories. I'd say that only the major ones such as Best Actor, Director etc. can make a person important enough for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

And there you go; the opinion of an editor of what is "major" rather than using reliable sources. I could argue that Greco-Roman style wrestling or skeet shooting (in the case of Josef Panáček, whose biography is literally two sentences and is somehow deemed as "internationally" notable for inclusion here) aren't any of the "major" sports, either. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Comparing these sports figures with those of the entertainment industry who won Oscars is a whataboutism (and in any case we’ve typically only included Oscar winners in the Best Director, Actor/Actress and Supporting Actor/Actress categories). As for the rest, we’ve had Talk:2023#Sports criteria tier list (Result: implemented as proposed) discussions on this [Games gold medallists (Result: include only if they also won medals at other significant international sports competitions, such as the Olympics) time] [footballers (Result: inclusion) and] [gold medallist team winners (Result: exclusion; individual Olympic gold medalists included) again], among many other examples - and there’s never been agreement to change things r.e. the inclusion of individual Olympic gold medalists. TheScrubby (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

How is it whataboutism? It's comparing and contrasting two very similar international awards. And your "tier list" is blatantly awful. Golf is top tier? According to whom? According to ACNielsen [5], basketball and baseball are two such sports more popular than golf globally. And the heck you mean that gold medalists were deemed to be included. The header for a discussion you linked literally reads Criteria for inclusion of sportspeople in Deaths (Result: inconclusive). Why? I Ask (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

On your last point, that discussion took place in 2021; a subsequent discussion last month (which is the first one linked) did come to general agreement among users here (though not the general community, so it basically constitutes local consensus) for standards for sports inclusion - and the inconclusiveness was over the overall standard, not the Olympic aspect specifically. TheScrubby (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I question the results of the discussion; it had no closing statement discussion rationale, and there were some people opposed. Did you personally decide that the result was to "include"? Why? I Ask (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

My personal position is that Olympic gold medalists are indeed incredible, however I think that there are just far too many of them. Going on the assumption that the Deaths section in article will stay, I would propose that instead we include current and former world record holders for athletic accomplishments. I think that world records are just barely more prestigious than the Olympics, and additionally, World Records don't have a schedule. Anyone can break a world record at any recorded/verifiable athletic event. We get a whole host of gold medalists every two years. Olympians seem to bludgeon the deaths list the most out of any category of people. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Meh, I think the most important reason to include deaths is if sources discuss them, just as with anything else. If the hypothetical 1967 world record holder for ping-pong serves dies and only one local newspaper source covers them, you'd be hard-pressed to include them. This goes back to my proposal (if deaths are somehow still included after the Village Pump discussion); we have January 2022 deaths and every other month for everyone. But if you want to be included in the main page, there needs to be a minimum of three or four national-level obituaries/articles about death. Only include what media considers notable; not what editors think is notable. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

That could work also. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

For once we agree! :-) Deb (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

We agree a lot more often than that, Deb :) InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Obvious exclude. Sort of weird to think people would think someone who swam fast once is really important. Very Average Editor (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

9 5.173.174.52 (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Shinzo Abe & Jiang Zemin

Should Shinzo Abe and Jiang Zemin be included in the lead?

I noticed that their deaths were recently removed [6] from the lead, but they seem to be of comparable notability to those already included in the paragraph. Carter00000 (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If you can find a source that establishes their deaths as a significant event of 2022 (as opposed to merely having occurred in 2022), then IMHO yes. “Year in review” sources would be ideal. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You missed the point. I removed the ones that were unsourced. In my opinion, the whole paragraph should go, as it's completely subjective. Deb (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)