Talk:2017/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 9

RfC: Events in May and June 2017

Which events that happened in May 2017 and June 2017 should be added in the "2017" page? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

One Love Manchester benefit concert

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus.The discussing editors could take it to the talk-page of One Love Manchester and take steps to re-initiate the discussion.Winged Blades Godric 10:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Should the entry about "One Love Manchester" benefit concert (4 June) be included or excluded? If included, should the entry mention/duplicate the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing as part of the concert entry? --George Ho (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Shifted up to below the Manchester bombing proposal and above the great mosque destruction entry. George Ho (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Shifted to the top of the discussion for greater awareness. --George Ho (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC); modified, 00:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - Benefit concerts are quite common, as are concerts which feature performers from other countries. Jim Michael (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I know the benefit concerts can be, Jim. As a stand alone entry, it's just a benefit concert. However, the mixture of the benefit concert and the bombing event can make the entry worth including for readers if you can give it a chance, right? --George Ho (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • If the Manchester bombing is included then this should be added next to it (as opposed to in another section). –Davey2010Talk 22:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, either both should be included together or both should be excluded - because the benefit concert happened in response to the attack. Jim Michael (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Exactly, Atleast to me it would seem silly to have the Manchester attack on there but make no mention of the concert... –Davey2010Talk 22:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Disagree. The attack was a major item in world news with international socio-political ramification; a benefit concert about it was not. Agree that if the concert is mentioned, it should be juxtaposed with the entry about the attack, since one follows directly from the other. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:55, 9 July 2017 (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.

2017 Manchester Arena bombing (RfC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Concensus is to include the event.The event has indeed grabbed prominent global coverage and that is what distinguishes itself from near-similar incidents.Winged Blades Godric 10:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Should the "2017 Manchester Arena bombing" (22 May) entry be included or excluded? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: Should the entry be stood alone? If not, then please feel free to vote at #One Love Manchester benefit concert proposal. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Implies forcing bombing event to be mixed with concert one. --George Ho (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I've already weighed in, but Exclude. It's unfortunate, but it's not particularly important among terrorist acts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude this domestic event. Jim Michael (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude, as per above. — Yerpo Eh? 05:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include bombing at an international artist's concert in Manchester killing people of multiple nationalities, followed by a global fund-raiser and multiple reliable source coverage on at least five continents. Either we're playing by the criteria or we're not. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Inlcude per TRM. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 14:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Inlcude Despite being biased because of my article contributions, this is clearly one of the key events in Britain so far this year, along with the Grenfell Tower fire.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
No-one's disputing that, but this is 2017 - not 2017 in the United Kingdom. Jim Michael (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
And no-one's disputing that is indeed an international event. Now, you've all had your "exclude" votes here and there, without anyone badgering you, I suggest you do the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
That's untrue - you can clearly see that some other people in this discussion and in the one above have agreed with me. Stop making false assertions. Jim Michael (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
It's an international event, full stop. And it meets the current criteria for inclusion, so I fail to see how this is even being discussed. Is it that the "regulars" don't like it while the non-regulars don't see the sense in the current position? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
No, it's that the regulars are usually better at knowing, understanding and interpreting the guidelines and criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure! And that's clearly not what the rest of the community believes this "project" should be doing! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
It is clearly NOT an international event. I don't see how anyone could think it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
This is becoming bogged down in a debate about what an "international event" is. If the definition is "an event in which people in multiple countries will be interested in hearing about in x years' time, then the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing and the Grenfell Tower fire both qualify by a wide margin.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The Grenfell Tower fire is a domestic event. It could only become internationally notable if other countries change their laws as a result of it. Jim Michael (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Come off it, Jim, the Grenfell fire has received enormous international media coverage. By using this skewed definition of an "international event", very few events would ever qualify for inclusion here. Who cares about the destruction of a mosque in Iraq, it's just a building, etc etc.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
This is precisely the problem with this project. Individuals making judgements on what is and what is not internationally or temporally notable. What has been described above is exactly what's happening (it's just a building in one country etc etc, it's just a bombing in one country etc etc, it's just one of the highest profile sports events of the year but it's set in one country......). Glad we have more eyes here, this is something that needs to be radically overhauled. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Various events in Kim Kardashian's life received enormous international media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
This theme is both telling of your understanding of the notability of international events, and at the same time a disgusting slur about the comparison between a globally significant terrorist attack on children that will resonate for decades and some fourth-rate celebrity. You may find it difficult to tell the difference, our readers certainly don't, and your continual repetition of this strawman comparison is a disgrace. Do us all a favour and find something more appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
"Resonate for decades"? Aren't you the one who's been telling us that we must avoid WP:CRYSTAL and use relevant sources? This reasoning is getting more ridiculous by the hour. But let me help you: the news cycle has come and gone. — Yerpo Eh? 05:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Still on the BBC homepage I'm afraid, but thanks for your input. Seems like you and the "regulars" aren't quite gauging the community's wishes any longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The homepage also includes "Car plunges into Colorado Springs swimming pool!" etc. I don't think we'd want to go with that. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Not on my homepage, but I guess you're looking at the dumbed down international variant. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The Manchester attack is not on my version of the BBC homepage, either (as of now). Looks like yours is reacting to the unusual amount of interest on your part. In any case, you're generalizing your narrow perspective again, which is really not a constructive way to engage in this discussion. — Yerpo Eh? 10:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
You probably have the same .com homepage that coffman has. So you'll see the same thing, the dumbed down advertising-included version. In any case, as you can see, the community disagrees with the project regulars, in pretty much every case here, so at least we've made progress there. And with luck we'll get the "guideline" redacted, and then we can focus on how to select events going forward which doesn't rely on the currently out-of-touch method. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Nope, the .co.uk, so kindly stop assuming facts about me, because you have no idea. And if luck has something to do with it, we'll get your horrible patronizing attitude out of the picture - one way or another - before any redacting happens. — Yerpo Eh? 11:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Not at all, we're all playing by the rules, and just because the regulars don't like it, and the community don't like the project in its current form, that doesn't mean veiled threats are required by anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Stop with your patronizing attitude and false generalizations, then we can talk about this project. — Yerpo Eh? 11:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Stop the veiled threats. And some of us already are talking about this project, with or without your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include. Certainly one of the most high-profile terrorist attacks of the year to date, with a great volume of coverage spanning the globe. The suggestion that this event is somehow not significant because it mainly impacted only one country is both incorrect (the consequences clearly were felt by populations around the world, and commented upon at length by their political leaders and news media, and led to one of the year's most highly publicized public events, as noted by TRM above) and also peculiar--terrorist attacks by their very nature almost always target a specific local, but even if the damage were incredibly isolated (let's say, killed only civilians from one nation), that does not per se mean the event failed to hit a given threshold of significance. Clearly, in an article like this, that determination ought to be made on the basis of the WP:WEIGHT this event commands amongst sources commented upon current affairs. By that policy-based measure, I think inclusion here is a borderline-WP:SNOW call. Snow let's rap 21:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include scope_creep (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I strongly support the inclusion of this event. However, if this is the only terrorist attack listed in the article, that reeks of systemic bias, considering that there have been many other significant terrorist attacks this year. -- Irn (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No, it's the nature and context of this terror attack which sets it apart from the two you mentioned. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude, per above. Just one terrorist attack out of many. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    It's more about location, impact, global involvement and reaction than just "one from many", that argument can be applied to every single news story ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude Oppose as stand-alone entry (was neutral), even as the latest proposer of this entry – The only prominent parts about this bombing event are Ariana Grande and her Dangerous Woman Tour, which alone do not justify the inclusion of this entry. Not all notable events are included merely because they are... notable under Wikipedia definition. To me, "international sensationalism" and "international coverage" do not equate to "international notability", "international significance" or "international prominence". In this case, the bombing event happened and was one of deaths/murders events. The media made the whole bombing coverage international to highlight Grande and her tour and reignite tensions between the Europeans and Muslim community. Also, neither possibilities of ISIS involvement nor the media release of confidential information leaked from the US intelligence service does not make the bombing event itself more worthy to include. The leaked info coverage was just to attract and highlight one of Donald Trump troubles. Mentioning "ISIS" was probably to further divide anti-Muslim and pro-Muslim sides. The "2015" page may include November 2015 Paris attacks, but that's just the "Other stuff exists" argument... or just an attempt to say... "consistency". The Manchester bombing pales in comparison to the Paris attacks. --George Ho (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC); amended, 22:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC); changed vote, 22:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
– Further note: I'm also not convinced that One Love Manchester benefit concert would make the bombing event worthy to include as stand-alone. The concert was attended by tens of thousands of people and multiple artists from mostly US and UK, but that's about the concert itself. Also, most of the victims were British; only two non-Britons were Poles/Polish. Readers can find the bombing event elsewhere by browsing through the Ariana Grande article. BTW, One Love Manchester can be proposed as a stand-alone entry to include. Anyone? --George Ho (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC); amended, 22:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Changing my mind. I'll propose this soon. --George Ho (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Quick recap on this event:
    Suicide bomb in centre of one of Britain's largest cities.
    Target is children.
    Act is internationally recognised singer.
    Bomber is trained in Libya.
    US, UK and Libyan services working together on it.
    US leaks images and details of bombing globally.
    Victims are multinational.
    Global fundraiser held in Manchester a few weeks later (One Love Manchester, broadcast to more than 50 countries).
  • This is not just a terrorist attack in a war zone. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    Plus in 2015 we have the domestic event "November 13 – Multiple terrorist attacks claimed by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Paris, France, result in 130 fatalities.[67]" so we're either consistent with domestic events or we're not. Or there's an unwritten criterion about the number of deaths that are now required. The Paris attacks did not focus on children, nor did it have the resulting global fundraising efforts. So either both are okay, or neither, but certainly not just Paris. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    Also, should this help, ISIS is an terrorist organization with multiple followers and groups/subgroups from around the world. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 20:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include - Notable terrorist attack and without a doubt this should be included period. –Davey2010Talk 22:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include. Terrorist attack that received substantial international coverage. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include per every other "include" !vote here. — Gestrid (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include, as one of the most globally significant human events of the year so far, from a socio-political waves perspective If worse comes to worst and we have to revise that assessment later in the year, then we'll do so. I sure hope not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include, received global coverage.Blethering Scot 21:16, 31 July 2017 (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.

Destruction of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri (Mosul)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A strong consensus that the destruction of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, Iraq (21 June) should be included, due to its historical significance and its symbolical importance has been reached. Additionally, there is a consensus to include it's capture as well, for the same reasons. --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Should the entry about destruction of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, Iraq (21 June) be included or excluded? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Exclude. One of many historic mosques destroyed by ISIS. If something new comes of it, such as censure by the religious leaders of Iran, it might be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude this domestic event. Jim Michael (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude, nothing that would set this apart from other minor events in the ISIS rampage. — Yerpo Eh? 05:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include but include its destruction and its capture — The overlap of historical notability of the mosque, symbolic notability (ISIS destroyed the place where they proclaimed their caliphate), and its role as a key event in the ongoing battle of Mosul suggests an unusual notability. US is involved per ISIS' accusation of their culpability. An explainer on the mosque's importance by the BBC suggests it's not quest "one of many historic mosques". Independent coverage comes from four continents (Europe, North America, north Africa, and west Asia).--Carwil (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include obviously per Carwil's notes, this complies satisfactorily with all the project's current criteria for inclusion (as a minimum) and has received global coverage as an international loss of architecture, covered widely on many continents in reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include per Carwill and TRM. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 14:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include. As noted, this is not just any mosque, and this information can be easily coupled with other coverage of ISIS-oriented events in this article, particularly its general reversal of fortunes/loss of territory and the increasingly volatile responses. Snow let's rap 21:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Nor was it an especially important mosque. Jim Michael (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Jim, stop now. We know your position, you don't need to argue ad infinitum in its favour, it won't help. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
If you say so. It's an 850-year-old heritage site that is deeply connected with one of the most famous Muslim military leaders of all time. And even if it had been of relatively modern construction and relevance, there is the still the massive symbolic significance it has inured as the location from which ISIS declared its creation of a "caliphate", and the representative role it has taken on since--something that can be cited to literally hundreds of WP:reliable sources. But really, neither your nor my personal idiosyncratic views on the relevance of the monument itself matter here; the event of the monument's destruction is itself clearly a matter of substantial significance, as judged by breadth of coverage and the deep meaning being attached to it, at both the regional and international level. Snow let's rap 23:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include. A combination of historical significance of the structure (850 yo) & symbolic significance as part of the war. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include It is a 12th century artifact, hanging around for more than 800 years, then those ur-men destroyed it. scope_creep (talk)
  • Include Historic significance that will be worth noting in years to come.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include - Per Carwil, The Rambling Man, and Snow Rise. -- Irn (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include Carwil, Snow Rise and TRM - Notable attack which should be included. –Davey2010Talk 22:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include reluctantly, especially as proposer – Multiple historical monuments have been destroyed during the Iraqi and Syrian Wars, which have led to millions or hundreds of thousands of deaths. Excluding the entry would be detrimental to readers, even when it seems like a mere monument. Whether it should be included in 2010s is a different issue. This proposal is about including the mosque destruction in "2017", so shall it be. --George Ho (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include Mosque is of historical significance, and excluding an act of violence simply because violence is common from ISIS is only contributing to systemic bias in these pages, as I have argued elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include per above half-dozen includes. Jusdafax 06:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include for historical significance (modulo Carwil's other relevance ideas), and for some WP:systemic bias reduction. This isn't Westpedia or Christendompedia, though it can look that way a bit too much.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WHO's estimate of Cholera outbreak in Yemen

(non-admin closure) Consensus is to include (WHO)'s estimate of infection cases involving 2016–17 Yemen cholera outbreak.- MrX 15:57, 2 August 2017 (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 the entry about World Health Organization (WHO)'s estimate of infection cases involving 2016–17 Yemen cholera outbreak be included or excluded? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Exclude, for now. If something internationally notable happens because of it, I would go for inclusion. It has been claimed that (1) Saudi Arabia is at war with Yemen, and (2) Saudi Arabia has supplied a significant amount of support. If _we_ could say that (meaning a single reliable source for both (1) and (2)), I might lean toward inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude this domestic event. Jim Michael (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards include because of severity which makes it stand out on the international scale. The Saudi offer of aid should be understood in the context of the ongoing war and is probably cynical (as propaganda effort, knowing that Yemen could never accept), so this is IMO not really an expression of international importance. — Yerpo Eh? 05:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include as announced by the United Nations, and as already discussed, with Saudi (who are currently bombing Yemen daily) offering tens of millions of dollars of aid. Making predictions into these kinds of acts is not a role that should be undertaken by Wikipedians, we stick with reliable sources (on most other parts of the projects). Global coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Note: predictions is all we have until Yemen either accepts or rejects the offer. In any case, the offer is not an expression of any international significance unless something comes out of it. — Yerpo Eh? 17:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed - and there's still nothing in the article about aid from Saudi. Jim Michael (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
It's there now, and since it's via WHO and UNICEF, your concerns are not really relevant. Now stop badgering those with whom you don't agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not badgering anyone - I'm replying in a civil matter. Jim Michael (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Say no more. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include. Coverage is significant even at this stage (and unsurprising, given the scale of the event and its context), and details of the ultimate fallout are likely to grow the story even further. (I do not consider this a WP:CRYSTAL call, insofar as I think the coverage is already significant enough for inclusion--I merely note that this story is only likely to continue to feed into others of global importance). Snow let's rap 21:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Major health crisis noted by WHO. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include scope_creep (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include - Per The Rambling Man and Snow Rise. -- Irn (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include — event is sudden and affects >100K people.--Carwil (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include per Snow Rise. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 20:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include per TRM & Snow Rise - Notable outbreak which should be included. –Davey2010Talk 22:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include, especially as proposer – Still horrific and one of the results of the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present). This proposal isn't about including the WHO's estimate in the 2010s or 21st century. It's about including the entry in the "2017" page. That's all. --George Ho (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include, per TRM and my comments on the thread above. A cholera outbreak affecting 200,000 people; why the heck are we even discussing this? Vanamonde (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I don't think this is really formulated right. The fact that WHO came up with an estimate isn't really "a thing", encyclopedically speaking. The actual outbreak is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:04, 9 July 2017 (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.

2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus has been reached that 2017 cyber attacks on Ukraine should be included, as an event with international importance that affected multiple countries. --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I modified the proposal for you, Yerpo. --George Ho (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I tend toward exclude on this one, at least at present time; the coverage has been skimpy outside regional press, even when compared against other cybersecurity news. It is a developing story though, so I'm reserving my ultimate call on it. Snow let's rap 21:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include scope_creep (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Why? This is not a WP:VOTE. — Yerpo Eh? 06:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
      • It may not be a vote, but it takes 2 minutes to read the article, and release how weird the whole event was. Firstly, it was the first in human history, that an event of this type happened. It took down the whole countries infrastructure initially I think for 7 hours, and then further events later. That included, banking, power company's, airports, commercial infrastructure. The whole country. It was fundamentally a cyber war. scope_creep (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include The cyberattacks occurred in multiple countries and four continents (five if you count Oceania as a continent). Callmemirela 🍁 talk 20:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include per current criteria and per common sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include, especially as proposer – Computers, computers everywhere. One mishap can create havoc anywhere. *ends rhyming* Anyway, a global cybercrime definitely. --George Ho (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Lean toward include as an event of international importance, which has already led to some changes in national Internet policies in different nations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include - serious effects in several countries. Jim Michael (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include per everyone else and per recent developments given in the article. — Gestrid (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I get what Arthur Rubin, et al., are saying, but the international effects are not really the result of one cyberattack, but of years of them. The necessity for policy changes has been building over a long time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Copy, paste, and modify this subheader to suggest any other event)

Threaded discussion

  • Looks like the project "regulars" all vote inline with their collective beliefs that their project is currently precisely correct, while those of us who come at it cold and try to understand the arcane inclusion criteria have very different views. This RFC is going to prove to be a very useful case study when it comes to unravelling the currently nonsensical inclusion criteria when an RFC is placed against the project as a whole. What seems to me to be the primary and unforgivable flaw is that our readers have no idea what this super-selective list of events is, especially versus such a broad array of deaths, and with no quality of any of it considered at all. All responses from "regulars" amount to "well it's in the archives" or "well read the edit notice" or similar. Pity our audience. Regardless of the outcome of these individual items, we now have enough momentum to bring this project to the attention of the wider community, and for that I am very grateful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, I don't want to add fuel to fire, as I'm not sure a broad-ranging debate is necessary here (but maybe I am unaware of some previous major disputes in this area), but the relevant guidance is available at WP:Advice pages; by long-standing, consistent, and overwhelmingly broad community consensus (which has been further codified by ArbCom in multiple cases), WikiProjects are banned from creating idiosyncratic editing standards (not otherwise found in broader community policy) and then trying to enforce them on pages perceived to be within their purview. Doing so is considered WP:disruptive and contrary to several pillar policies. Editors for each individual article (whether they are aligned with a given WikiProject or not) must engage in the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS process using actual editorial policies and guidelines on a case-by-case basis, and cannot utilize arguments such as "well we [meaning the WikiProject editors or a group of editors on a similar article] decided it shall be done this way, so that governs here". If that is what is going on here (I see no particularly strong evidence of it, but this is my first involvement on a contemporary year article, that I can recall) then this is less a matter for getting greater community consensus (the community has already spoken on this principle, ad nauseum) and more a behavioural issue that needs to be addressed. Of course, there is nothing stopping the editors of the WikiProject from trying to enshrine their "sensible" approach in actual policy and/or style guidelines through the WP:PROPOSAL/policy adjustment processes, but they are not allowed to skip that vital community consensus process and go straight to "this is the way it is going to be, because this article is in our domain!" Snow let's rap 22:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's quite what's going on here. The relevant guideline is WP:RY. The problem stems from interpreting the guideline. There is a small handful of editors with a shared interpretation of the guidelines who also dedicate the most time and energy to these pages. As such, their interpretation has become the dominant one and the one that ultimately determines what is in these pages. Additionally, I think a lot of users, like The Rambling Man, come here and find themselves frustrated by this interpretation, fight against it, lose, and then, unlike TRM, leave feeling frustrated. TRM chose to continue fighting, and that's the only reason we're having this conversation right now. I think it might be useful to take this opportunity to discuss how we ought to interpret the guideline (in particular, what is meant by “international significance”). -- Irn (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you much for the extra context and insight here, Irn. Taking a closer look at WP:RY, it certainly does seem to be filled with some rather unexpected and idiosyncratic restrictions which do not seem to comport very well with more general content policies regarding notability, neutrality, weight, and so forth. So I had a look at the talk page and found more or less the situation you describe: it seems these peculiar rules are coming from just a very small number of editors over a very small amount of time. As usual, I wish TRM could express his discontent with a less bombastic approach (I'd like to remind several people here that needlessly inflammatory language only gets heels dug in deeper), but from what I've seen, I do share his general impression (and yours) that something is deeply off the rails here.
In particular, if I am reading this discussion and this one correctly, it seems to me that the editors here did not follow the requirements of WP:PROPOSAL, but in fact promoted WP:RY from a WikiProject page (or some other informal set of recommendations) to a Wikipedia WP:guideline on their own initiative?? Let's be absolutely clear about something: if that is in fact what happened here, then WP:YR is not in reality a Wikipedia guideline in any remote sense and all indication within it that suggests it is a guideline needs to be removed immediately Guidelines are never adopted without full vetting through a good-faith exercise of the complete PROPOSAL process. If that was not done here, before the article was moved to main project space, then not only does the page not have any binding authority over any additions to any article, but the editor(s) who changed its wording and moved its location to suggest it was a guideline, without gaining the proper community consensus for such a move, need a WP:trouting at the very least; if they did this while knowing about the proposal process, then this was outright bad faith behaviour and should result in community attention at ANI (and probably a sanction), whereas if they did it simply because they were unaware that guidelines could only be promoted via PROPOSAL, then they are clearly not yet anywhere near competent enough to be working in the area of policy pages.
I hope I haven't misread the situation here. I made an effort to search for a relevant RfC in major project forums (as PROPOSAL requires) and found nothing, but perhaps I missed it. But the discussions linked above seem to indicate there never was a PROPOSAL process before these recommendations were erroneously "promoted" to guideline status. If that is the case, I repeat that the simple fact is that WP:YR is not a legitimate guideline under this project's policies and should be altered to make this fact clear until such time as that process has been followed. And anyone trying to enforce rules from a guideline which they snuck into main project space without proper procedure is acting in a manifestly WP:disruptive fashion and likely to come under community scrutiny; the community at large us unlikely to look favourably upon a group of editors flaunting the rules by which we create guidelines. Frankly, if this is in fact what happened, the editors in question (whoever the most proactive ones who moved the page may be) would be very well advised de-"promote" this article themselves (by removing any language in it that suggests it is a guideline) and then contemplate whether they can promote it for real via PROPOSAL. Failure to do so could be immensely problematic for sorting this all out and probably will not take those editors to a good place with regard to their status in the community. Snow let's rap 04:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Whoa, that's a really good call. Looking at the history, making it a guideline appears to have been one user's decision, which was executed without discussion, definitely not in line with the process spelled out at WP:PROPOSAL. I guess the next step is to change it from a guideline to an essay, and then start a conversation over at WT:RY about how to move forward? -- Irn (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • All four events currently listed appear to be major events of international significance. Unless we are limited in space, I suggest including all four. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yerpo, WP:VOTE has been downgraded from guideline to essay several years ago. Why still using it? George Ho (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Because it's relevant. Wikilawyering doesn't change that. — Yerpo Eh? 06:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:BADGER. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me for being blunt, but if you always tend to confuse civil discussion with badgering like that, then perhaps you should think about whether Wikipedia is a right place for you... We need to establish consensus because there is no authority who will close this discussion and implement the result, and drive-by voters contribute nothing useful to this. On the contrary. — Yerpo Eh? 07:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Excused. Repeatedly asking the same questions of the same voters can only be interpreted one way I'm afraid. You need to consider whether this is something you'd like to continue. And well done for accusing those who are voting here in good faith of being "drive-by voters" who "contribute nothing useful to this". You should read WP:AGF before you go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I was, of course, referring to unexplained votes by people who were never involved in the topic at hand. Drive-by is a well-established euphemism for those and that they contribute nothing useful to the discussion is a fact - regardless of their intentions. So a cheap trick, invoking AGF here. — Yerpo Eh? 08:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Your words, not mine. Now then, I'd suggest you leave others to work on this. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:BADGER and WP:BULLY are excellent descriptions of 'your actions, TRM. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Coming from a rogue admin, I'll treat that with the respect it deserves..... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
You were a rogue admin. You are apparently still a rogue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
You seem proud. Remember what happens next. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, this RfC is insufficiently advertised to suggest changes in WP:RY. Even if consensus is obtained to add these events, it only applies to these events. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. Look at the last time the "guideline" was discussed. We already have a bucket-load more interaction here from sane-thinking individuals. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Now editors who disagree with you are thinking insane? Pretty soon, your haughty attitude will accomplish something here, just not what you intend. — Yerpo Eh? 19:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Who knows? What I do know is that this project's current approach is not what the community wants, and that's brilliant! No spitting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Your patronising, arrogant sniping at several regular, productive editors is making it very difficult for people to assume good faith. Jim Michael (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Diffs. And your personal attack is noted. I'm really glad this issue has been brought to the wider community, and with them we must agree, that's Wikipedia. Your personal opinion (patronising, sniping etc) is noted, but your collective bullying of me to ignore such shortcomings in this project is so much more cromulent. You, and your mates, need now to focus on the discussions that are relevant now. The discussions that wouldn't have been possible if I'd just accepted your bullying tactics, tag team tactics, continual minor and deliberately inaccurate responses. I'm so thrilled that we now have a proper group of editors who actively care about the community involved in this, and I trust you'll observe the process of revolutionising this project's approach in accordance with the outcomes! We're on step 2 now, at least having globally acknowledged that RY was a real ongoing problem. It clearly isn't a problem for most people to assume good faith with me since so many people are in agreement with me. Other than you and your cadre. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The only personal attacks here are the ones from you. You're arrogantly talking down to the regulars in most of your comments to us. None of the regulars here agree with you. You're determined to reverse much of the work that's been done here - all because you disagreed with me saying that the 2017 Finsbury Park attack wasn't important enough to be on ITN. Everyone here - other than you - has a reasonable tone and communicates as equals. Jim Michael (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that was pretty much my conclusion about how ALL this came about. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
No, a refusal to accept the status quo so ardently protected by a few project owners? The RfCs speak for themselves, cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Jim, please stop speaking for all of the editors. You don't. I've been on Wikipedia for over 4 years with over 17,000 edits; I am a regular. You don't speak for me. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 23:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I mean regulars on year articles, especially on recent year articles - not regular Wikipedians in general. Jim Michael (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The three or four people trying to bully me away from this analysis you mean? Not working, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I consider myself a regular on the recent year articles, and I agree with much of TRM's criticism of RY. -- Irn (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Meaningless, so suit yourselves I am only here because I got RfC'd. I had to read a bit of the article just to make sense of it all. The rationale behind the article not only is arguable, it is incoherent. One person's international significance is another's "Huh??? Wot dat?" or even "Who cares?". Pages of obituary notices, mostly of has-beens and functional nonentities, and a few news items of international significance only in the eyes of a few editors. This is a waste of words and of space and will remain so until a rational basis for the conception of this type of article emerges. Merely handwaving about internationality won't cut it. I'll try to add a comment at the end, but I suspect it won't be worth reading. JonRichfield (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • To respond to TRM's original post in this section: I came here without any detailed preconceived notions about the process or the criteria (I haven't touched one of these articles since some time around 2008 or 2009, I think, and even then it was the "in sport" variant. I think it is good for pages like this to get RfC input, because if a process is run too long by the same handful of people it can start serving the ends of its own little bureaucracy rather than the needs and expectations of the readership (or whatever the target audience is; this is true of any kind of project or process like this, e.g. development of a piece of software, operation of a charity, etc.). The editorship at large, and the slice of it called up by WP:FRS, isn't exactly the readership at large, but is a more accurate model of it than the regulars of the year articles, simply by virtue of being a more random selection.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for specifics

K.e.coffman and Scope creep, may you please explain your reasons to favor the inclusions of whichever events you discussed? Others will appreciate your arguments/opinions about them. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Another update: I added the #One Love Manchester benefit concert proposal hours ago. Please feel free to comment there. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Moved comment to near-top of this subsection. George Ho (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Snow Rise. I checked this edit and found it was moved in 2009 by one user named Wrad. I checked Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 7 and saw that a draft was mentioned. Not sure about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 8 as I don't see one discussion about the RY guideline. I searched for discussions about the guideline: Special:Search/"Recent Year" guideline "January 2009" prefix:Wikipedia:Village pump, Special:Search/"Recent Years" guidelines "January 2009" prefix:Wikipedia:Village pump. Not one back in 2009. --George Ho (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional searching, George. I'm surprised that this happened so long ago; if the page was erroneously promoted to guideline status with the required WP:PROPOSAL process, I would have expected it to have happened in the last year or so, given the fact that no outside editor has noticed it until now. However, it does not surprise me in the least that this seems to be what happened (whenever it was that it happened); there are just far to many bizarre and idiosyncratic rules about what constitutes an important annual story that do not jive with our general WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV views for this "guideline" to have been the product of approval by the community at large. However, if the page was published in 2009, it creates a complication; we could, reasonably, alter the page to clarify that its scope is that of an essay, and force its adherents to promote it through the proposal process, where it would probably need to lose many of it's less well-thought-out components and comport more closely with basic content guidelines. Since the page was never made a guideline through the legitimate process, there's really no policy-consistent objection to be made with this approach, but it strikes me as likely to lead to an edit war involving those who have grown attached to it and the "outsiders" they are determined to protect its standards from, regardless of how has the right of policy and community consensus here. Alternatively, editors working in this area who know the guideline is not a product of a properly vetted community consensus could just ignore it, knowing its illegitimacy. But here again, edit wars could result and the vast majority of editors who incidentally edit on the contemporary year articles and have their work reverted under reference to WP:RY would have no way of knowing that the guideline held no actual weight.
Probably at this point it is best to take the matter to WP:VPP, be clear about what has transpired, and see how the community at large thinks the matter should be addressed; I suspect that the community will opt for immediately de-classifying the page as a guideline and requiring it to pass the full PROPOSAL process. This would be ideal in that it would require broad discussion of each of the provisions of the page, some of which have sketch rational or none altogether. I do think there is a happy middle ground to be found here (as in most policy discussions), but I do think some of those who have been used to working within the framework of this faux guideline are going to have to get used to dropping some of the standards that have been employed for a while simply because "this is how we've decided to do it." Snow let's rap 06:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree, I think it's important that this is quickly resolved, particularly with the backdrop of wider community participation on this very page demonstrating that the current criteria are not suitable. A wholesale revisit of the inclusion criteria and the status of the "guideline" is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Ditto. The RY guidelines as stand right now are just not enough and frankly, very unclear about what constitutes an international event. Jim has his definition and I have my own. It could be interpreted as many thing and essentially violates WP:NPOV. The guidelines should be restarted from scratch with proper community participation, proposals and consensus. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 17:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it was promoted to guideline in 2017, as I noted above. Whether that promotion was done according to Wikipedia guidelines is another matter. Before that, it was just generally, but not universally, accepted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, we'll go back and re-work that in due course. It clearly should not be a Wikipedia guideline, nor should you subjectively allow certain editors to modify it and revert changes by others, abusing your position as an admin in the meantime. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Callmemirela: Frankly, I just don't see the logic behind an "international" requirement at all and can't fathom that it would have been kept in if this had gone through a proper proposal process. I can think of plenty of events which would be massively important to note as one of the major developments of a year, and yet which are mostly a regional phenomena. All this requirement would do (if it were part of a genuine guideline) would be to force editors to go through mental gymnastics to try to classify this or that event as touching upon the lives of other people in other nations (evidence of this can be seen immediately above). Meanwhile, other stories (which may be events of drastically lesser impact on the whole, in terms of both sourcing and just obvious pragmatic reality) get a free pass if they start out with an international character. There's nothing editorially or rationally sound in that approach; it's a fairly arbitrary standard that does not comport with our general policies on notability, weight, and neutrality (and as someone touched upon above, there are significant WP:systemic bias issues that can result as well). Of course, most (if not all) events that are likely to be proposed for inclusion in an article like this one are almost certain to have some sort of argument for how they might be considered international in character. But that does not mean the requirement itself helps us to better judge the relevancy of a topic, as such things are meant to be judged under Wikiepdia's editorial policies. On the whole, this standard (and several others that currently appear in WP:RY), constitute a good reminder of why we have the proposal process for new guidelines, such that the views of a small number of editors do not become normalized as a required approach without the rationale being thoroughly tested by the community. Snow let's rap 22:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The reason for the international requirement is that we have many articles by country, such as 2017 in the United Kingdom, 2017 in the United States etc. - for which domestic events are more appropriate. Jim Michael (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure, and it makes sense to a dump a certain number of events (indeed, the overwhelming majority) into those articles. But the name of this article is "2017", not "2017 in international affairs"; there's no reason, in principle, that a story cannot be mainly one which arises from a single country (by any reasonable measure of whether it was "mainly domestic" or "mainly international") and yet still be one of the most massive stories of the year and bear mentioning in an article summarizing that year's events. Consider, for example, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster; I presume that it is mentioned in the 2011 article, but if it could only be mentioned because a handful of foreign experts participated in the repair (or some other tangential detail to the main events) and would otherwise have to be excluded--that would be, in a word, idiotic.
The problem (well, part of the problem) is that this standard allows people to pick the international proxies they want for certain stories and then deny that international nexus is significant enough for other events (see again, systemic bias). When in fact, there is no principled reason for an international requirement at all. I have no problem with moving the vast majority of regional stories to their appropriate nation-year articles, truly. But there's no legitimate cause for excising events from main RY articles that were clearly major stories of the year in question, just because they happened to be geographically bounded inside one nation and most significant to that nation's people. It's arbitrary, cumbersome, and doesn't comport with our broader community polices. Snow let's rap 22:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
You could make a case for including the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami in 2011 because it was the most costly disaster in the history of the world and because it caused sharp falls in stock markets across the world. Jim Michael (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point here: no editor should have to jump through convoluted hoops to prove to your satisfaction that a story has an international dimension, just because a small handful of editors decided for themselves that "only international stories can be major stories of the year" and then someone created the false impression that this is a site-wide guideline by creating a fake policy page without going through (absolutely required) WP:PROPOSAL process to vet whether this and the related recommendations are even a good idea. I've been clear to stipulate multiple times that I do think most entries on a recent year article will in fact pass that test (by more or less attenuated reasoning depending on how much that particular editor wants that particular item listed), but that does not address the more fundamental question of whether the requirement itself is logical, useful, advisable, or consistent with other policy in this area. Snow let's rap 01:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
No-one's claiming that the guidelines here apply across the site - they only apply to RY articles. Jim Michael (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, they don't apply to any article anywhere on the project (at least not with any more weight than an WP:essay); if that page was not vetted and approved by the community as a guideline through the WP:PROPOSAL process, it's not a guideline, and nothing in it is more than a recommendation. One user unilaterally changing the wording and location of an WP:advice page to suggest it is a guideline does not make it so. That's a flagrant violation of basic community consensus on how editorial guidelines are formed and promoted on this project. But in any event, what I meant in my above post is that you expect it to apply to all RY-related articles. Snow let's rap 03:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
It's the way RY articles have been run for years. I didn't know that any formal process was required to make the guidelines official. Jim Michael (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough: I certainly take you at your word that the mistake you made which caused you to try to enforce these rules was a good-faith error. But an error it was, nevertheless, and you're probably going to have to get used to making your arguments on the RY talk pages without referencing to that guideline, given its illegitimacy. At least until you and other volunteers hammer out something new and get the community's stamp of approval through the PROPOSAL process. Snow let's rap 15:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Damn, your text blocks are everything man. I hear ya. However, there should a limit as to what can be added to the RY articles. For example, the news or event occurred or interacted in two countries. Let's say a major event of spying between the UK and the US or the UK and France. However, if it is a major event such as the Manchester bombing or the Finsbury attack, it should receive plenty of coverage worldwide or at least within the continent. A shooting that left two dead from a domestic dispute is not notable for RY. Again, these are just a few examples. I agree that there is systemic bias because only a few events are chosen, vague description if it should be included, etc. The guidelines right now are simply not enough in so many ways. What is exactly an international event? It's all very vague and violates NPOV as well as systemic bias. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 23:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The 2017 Finsbury Park attack is nowhere near notable enough for 2017 in Europe, let alone 2017.Jim Michael (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that there needs to be some kind of standard for deciding the primacy of events during a year. And its certainly by necessity going to be a complicated task, because (to a far greater extent than I would accept in most editorial areas) its hard to dodge at least a small degree of subjectivity here. But we do have general editorial policies that all subordinate guidelines need to work within (which several of the recommendation in that unvetted/faux "guideline" page fail to do). This ought to start based on WP:WEIGHT of the sources, though that can only be a starting point in this case because different areas of news (and different areas of the world) get varying degrees of coverage, when we're talking literally about the sum of all sources in a given year. But to just decide that an event cannot be classified as a "major event of the year" because it is not significantly international (as judged by our own editors according to their own whims) is closer to a kind of WP:Original research; it opens the door for own subjective assessment of the importance of events, when what we need is a principled guideline based on metrics that are efficient and least likely to be subjected to our personal biases. It will be complicated to work out the details, but our analysis has to start with the sources, not our own personal views. Snow let's rap 01:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment I haven't read the whole of the foregoing (SURRRRPRISE!!!) so I should apologise for that, but I find it hard to imagine that my omission is out of place in context. The whole rationale behind articles of this kind is at best flawed, and IMO too incoherent to be functional. Is it a news sheet? If so, apart from its worthlessness for anything of that kind, what is it doing in WP? Is it a digest for the anticipation, evaluation, or documentation of emerging history? Then by what standards of "internationality" do the obituaries get justified, and why should their listings in such an article be of general interest? Similarly for the events. What counts as international significance, and why should only international events count? Most events that eventually have international significance occur in single countries and often do not immediately affect other countries. What counts as an event? A march in the US is international? A political parasite in err... Gambia, was it? is forced out by external troops (which makes it international? How about the fact that someon spat across the border? That is an international incident too!) N. Korea launches yet another and yet yet another test missile into the sea? Each such missile is a separate international event? Leo Szilard crosses a street in Germany while conceiving a neutron chain reaction? A Serbian nonentity knocks off an Austrian stuffed shirt in Sarajevo? China spend years building islands in international waters? Is the idea to scoop the historians? How do the criteria for internationality advance that? Get real folks; how incoherent can you get? One test for how useful all this is, is the kind of argument that can arise about which items to include or exclude — and just look at the arguments here! Apart from anything else, where has anyone answered the question of who would want to look up an article of this kind and for what purpose? For the sake of the items mentioned in this one or other year-articles? "Oh gosh, let's look up 2001; wasn't that the year that woman drowned all 5 of her young children to save them from Satan? Or that a Vermont senator left the Republican party to caucus as an independent with Democrats?" Am I getting through? JonRichfield (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You're kind of getting through I think. In answer to your question where has anyone answered the question of who would want to look up an article of this kind and for what purpose, I had suggeted we should simply use the articles that were agreed by the community at ITN (which has substantially larger participation than this project) as events here. That way we know they're of interest to our editors and most likely our readers, we know they're of reasonable quality, and you'd get around 12 to 20 or so events per month, which seems an appropriate level of "significant global events" for this kind of page (unlike the three months of 2017 which the project regulars have restricted to one event). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
The 2017 Women's March occurred in many countries; it was international and intercontinental. Jim Michael (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I miss the point of that comment. Who is arguing to the contrary? Are you suggesting that for an item to be international it has to take place in multiple nations? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily, but it has to influence multiple nations (in a wider sense than a handful of individuals), and/or be exceptional on a global scale. — Yerpo Eh? 09:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
There you go. Completely subjective and hence why so few articles make it past your oversight group. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
How is this more subjective than a vote by a group of ITN regulars (who are predominantly Westerners, I assume)? — Yerpo Eh? 10:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
You said this had to influence multiple nations (in a wider sense than a handful of individuals) but that is complete POV. At least ITN runs a consensus-based discussion for each entry, and ensures quality so our educational values are maintained. Nothing of the sort happens at RY where such entries are guarded by the regulars whose input criteria appear to be seriously in doubt given the ongoing RfCs. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
On ITN, many events which are important enough aren't posted. That's because they aren't nominated - or they are nominated, but aren't posted because the articles aren't of high enough quality or because the nominations aren't supported. Jim Michael (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Aha, the community don't deem them important enough but you four do!! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
It isn't POV - influence is gauged by what RS are saying about an event. And please stop misrepresenting the ongoing RfCs. Taken together, they demonstrate nothing of the sort you claim. — Yerpo Eh? 12:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
You don't use RS's, you use subjective judgement. The RFCs have shown you all to be wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

History of WP:RY status

I'm not very active on Wikipedia anymore, but it's depressing to see that recent year articles are facing all of the same issues, carried on by the same editors. As for my view on the "guideline" that "we" created 8 years ago, have a look at the last four or so comments here: [1]. I would only add to that that I did not know until reading this page that there was any Wikipedia-wide process on creating guidelines. Our intent (or at least my intent at the time. Can't speak for others) was to create some kind of basic framework to guide discussion, not a hard, fast, binding policy. I don't even agree with most of the "rules" written on it. Was just trying to improve the atmosphere and civility on RY pages. Apparently that was naive, and "guideline" means something different on this site than I thought it did at the time. Nothing really got fixed. Smack me with a trout, if you like. I was trying to help with limited knowledge and resources. Hopefully a group can get together and create a real guideline. I washed my hands of this long ago and am not interested in participating. Wrad (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: The "Recent years" guideline is downgraded by the creator Wrad into an "Essay" status. This is discussed at Wikipedia talk:Recent years#Not a guideline. --George Ho (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

– Skip that; the move was reverted back to "guideline" status. --George Ho (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
The "creator" does not have a say in the matter once the 2017 RfC at VPP declared it to be a guideline. You need either to "appeal" that RfC or hold a new RfC to declare it an essay. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, bold moves are great in articles, but when it comes to the status of project pages, not so much. You need a consensus. It should never have been unilaterally marked as a guideline years ago, this is true, but the recent RFC ultimately upheld that decision because it had been treated as one for so long. Unilaterally demoting it was as poor of a decision as unilaterally promoting it way back when. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


Respectfully Arthur and Beeblebrox, four of you voting in an RfC is not a legitimate replacement process for WP:PROPOSAL; there's a reason this community requires a high standard of vetting and approval for changing an WP:essay into a WP:guideline, and the fact that it took a while for other editors (that is, those who did not create and improperly promote these recommendations to fake "guideline" status) to catch on to what had transpired is not argument for just giving the page a clean pass as a "legitimate" guideline once it is discovered. Point in fact, the argument that pretty clearly inures from these facts is just the opposite; the amount of time the page has been falsely treated as the result of community consensus (with the editors who created it benefiting from its illegitimate status as a supposed guideline in content discussions and disputes) is something that needs to be addressed, not just shrugged off and accepted, because "woops, we didn't notice they had done this". I can fairly well guarantee that the community is not just going to accept a status quo situation in which one of our most basic and essential policies (the one by which we make policy no less) can be subverted and then, if the mistake isn't caught in time, a fake guideline just becomes a real one by default. Sorry guys, but that's a nonsense conclusion. And one which the community can hardly afford to tolerate, especially as it would incentivize those who want to stamp their idiosyncratic views on to guidelines (regardless of whether they comport with community consensus and our policies) to just go ahead and create a guideline in some niche area and try to fly under the radar for as long as possible.
No, look, I'm sorry, I assume each of your voted in a good faith manner in that RfC, whether you work on RY articles regularly or not, but the four of you can't make a guideline official by yourselves, through all of six complete sentences of community discussion! We don't do end-runs on WP:PROPOSAL on this project. That page is not a guideline and though I don't encourage anyone to edit war over the wording marking it as a guideline, no editor needs to treat it as anything more than an essay until it goes through a proper proposal process, is adjusted to meet community expectations, and then is validated by the community at large. Snow let's rap 08:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
^^^^ THAT ^^^^ The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
That was... perfection. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 15:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
So, Snow Rise, since the bold and classy move from Wrad was undone, would you be prepared to formulate this formally? It'd be better coming from someone more neutral to the issue. My bet is that the regulars will vote in favour of it not being a guideline, as will Beeblebrox, and it will be complete and utter waste of time and energy, but at least it will be on record I suppose. Would you be able to do that for us? We need to start the process of redefining this project's behavioural guidelines, and this is a great place to start. Thanks in advance. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi TRM. I'm not sure if you are asking me to host A), a VPP discussion to confirm that the page should be purged of any reference to it being a guideline, or B) a workshop for discussion of the page's content, so that it can be re-formulated in a more policy-consistent fashion and then go through a proper WP:PROPOSAL process and become a guideline for real. In principle, I'd be happy to assist with either, if other editors think it would be useful. I should add the caveat that I am very busy this next couple of weeks, so the pace of the discussion (or at least of my involvement as a facilitator) could be on the slow side, so I may not be the ideal choice in that sense. Nevertheless, if I can be of assistance in this regard and I am seen as a good neutral choice, I will be happy to do what I can. Snow let's rap 21:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Snow Rise I'm certainly looking for option A as I fail to see any widespread adoption of Wikipedia guidelines for Wikiproject inclusion criteria, especially when this specific project covers a mere 15 articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
On a side note, thanks to Wrad for the further clarification of the procedural history here, and for attempting to rectify the matter. Snow let's rap 08:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Closing?

Jim Michael, Arthur, and Yerpo, I will conclude the Great Mosque destruction, Cholera outbreak, and June global cyberattacks as "clear consensus to include" while mentioning your oppositions if you allow me. Of course, you're welcome to change your positions on those events. If my closing those proposals is inappropriate, then I guess I can request closure at WP:ANRFC. Meanwhile, I'll leave the rest of the discussion open, including two other proposals. Thoughts? George Ho (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with those, even with the mosque, as per the new arguments about its symbolic meaning. I don't have time now to change my vote there, I'll get to that tomorrow. — Yerpo Eh? 20:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I do not believe that the allowance of those in opposition to a clear consensus is required. I do not understand why permission needs to be sought from those in opposition to close an RfC. I do not understand why this closure technique is being used. Perhaps we should copy in Arbcom on this as it's clear that some edits have suddenly been made which are very close to IBAN territory, but in a game-playing manner... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I have now emailed Arbcom regarding this situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Permission from the opposition is not technically required for closure, but it is for a non-admin closure where the result is likely to be contested. Since <redacted>name</redacted> "poisoned" the discussion by introducing misstatements about Wikipedia policies and guidelines I think it would be better to wait for an uninvolved admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Diffs for these "misstatements" (which you previously referred to as "lies" which you then redacted with an edit summary of "redact true statement") please. Really, an admin should know better than to accuse an editor of outright lying. That's a genuine personal attack. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin please provide diffs to these "lies" so I can address them formally before we take action against your misuse of your position. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I cannot copy diffs on this phone, but your the claim that WP:RY is not a guideline has been established to be false. (You have made other false statements, but those are about your actions, and would only be relevant in another venue.) If you had brought this issue up 4 months ago, your arguments might have had some weight, but the next argument would have been WP:TNT; there would be nothing in the year articles worth keeping. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Diffs please. Of course, who knew this was a "guideline"? It's such a surprise that even the person responsible for it has tried to remedy it. You need diffs or else your accusations are simply personal attacks. This, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with when or where items are brought up. I'm not really interested in your personal attacks, I'm also not that bothered because I deal with this kind of flagrant abuse all the time, but it does show a troubling pattern of abuse of your position. Right now, though, we need to focus on the fact that the community are shaping up in complete opposition to the regulars here, and we start on the road to recovery for the project by eliminating this odd status scenario. Then the criteria need to be addressed, but all in good time. Your TNT claim is bizarre, at best, a non sequitur though. We'll get to that. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

We (will) need a neutral admin to close this RfC, because

  1. There are clearly Wikipedia-guideline-based arguments presented, on both sides.
  2. There are clearly non-Wikipedia-guideline-based arguments presented, including the claim that WP:RY is not an applicable guideline.

... and I am not neutral, so the admin will not be me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Come on, you're apparently an admin, I've asked you several times for diffs to back up your accusations, per ADMINACCT you need to start doing the right thing, although I see lately that you placed a one-week block on a new editor with whom you were involved and gave no proper warnings, so your current behavioural patterns here seem to fit that particular mould. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The "new" editor was since indef blocked, without having made any more edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
It matters not, you were absolutely wrong to place an involved block. It's fine, it's just another example of why your admin status needs community scrutiny, not to mention all these unfounded and unreferenced personal attacks all over the place. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin still waiting..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
You have made Someone has made various absurd claims about WP:RY, including
  1. That it isn't a guideline that applies to 2017
  2. That the 3-continent rule is indication of international significance, while any rational person with a reasonable understanding of English, would realize it's a minimal requirement.
That seems sufficient. Only the first is an outright lie, and you seem to have redacted that somewhere along the line. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Right, I've had enough of your accusations. Provide the diff of me "outright lying" and provide he diff of me "redacing that somewhere along the line". You, especially as an admin, simply cannot get away with this kind of lazy editing. Secondly, your point where you clearly assert that I am not a "rational person with a reasonable understanding of English" is yet another personal attack. It is clearly stated at WP:RY that "New events added must receive independent news reporting from three continents on the event. This is a minimum requirement for inclusion.", not that it's a "minimal requirement". Once items pass this "minimum" requirement, they are eligible. As demonstrated by the RFCs, all of which are finding against your interpretation of how this page should be managed. Now, you either redact all the personal attacks and provide diffs as I have requested of you now six times, or we'll be at ANI. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
That claim I do stand by. It is not a plausible interpretation of WP:RY that the "three-continent" rule is adequate for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Then the guideline needs to change as it clearly states that it's the minimum requirement for inclusion. It doesn't say it's not the minimum requirement for inclusion. It is entirely plausible to follow the semantics of the guideline. Now redact all personal attacks and all accusations of me lying. Or ask someone competent to get you the diffs I've asked you, an admin, for, seven times (or more). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

General observation

  • Add all - as of this posting - summoned by bot. It is very hard to vote for everything individually using a mobile phone. Everything that has been posted above up to this point I have read about and so is notable. I wonder would it not be simpler to allow autoconfirmed users to add what they would like, and then debate the notability if there's anything questionable? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 03:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, the problem has been (as evidenced by the voting) that a small number of project regulars have and enforce their own views on how to implement the criteria, hence why these individual items have been singled out for discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    Without a guideline, RY articles would be full of domestic and local events. Jim Michael (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    Who is saying there should be no guideline? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    That seems to be what Tim is suggesting. Jim Michael (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    Better than currently. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    No, because without a guideline we'd be having discussions every day on this talk page. Jim Michael (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    Seems that it's needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    Allowing autoconfirmed users only would seem to reduce a lot of problems from non-notable items being added. I went back to the beginning of the month and everything that was reverted, with the exception of one Garchomp2017 edit, was added by an IP editor or a user with less than ten edits under their belt. Bigger picture though, I'm new to this article and hadn't read WP:RY yet - I just saw it referenced in the comments. My vote to include all the items above was based on the fact that I thought they were notable - not whether something was domestic in scope or not. I was surprised to read that there's a specific comment asking not to add Trump's inauguration, as it's a domestic event, yet March includes the impeachment of South Korean President Park Geun-hye. The former represented the date Trump came to power, and so had more of a world impact than the latter. Also, I see now in the hidden comments that the argument for excluding the Manchester bombing is that it's a local event. When a local event gets worldwide press coverage, and is representative of a larger global problem, doesn't that change the notability scope? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, the oversight of this project is clearly out of step with the community, as evidenced by the ongoing RfCs which are strongly against the opinions of the three or four individuals who monitor this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    I've removed that impeachment. Jim Michael (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    How helpful to the readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
    It is, as it was a domestic event which didn't have any impact on any other countries. It belongs on 2017 in South Korea. Jim Michael (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    How do you know it didn't have any impact? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    There's no indication of it in her article. Jim Michael (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    If there were significant international effects, they would have been added to Park Geun-hye and Impeachment of Park Geun-hye. Jim Michael (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    Not necessarily. Plus your judgement seems to be contrary to the community, do you think you should be making such decisions any longer? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    The burden of proof of international notability is on the person who wants to add it. I've removed it in response to Tim pointing out that it shouldn't be on this article. There is a long-standing consensus that domestic events are excluded from RY articles. I've been in line with the community for years. The several newcomers to this article - most of whom probably won't stay around - haven't come up with a better guideline. Jim Michael (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    Each of those RfCs have shown your opinion to be in direct contradiction to the community. The impeachment has resulted in Moon's election, and changes in relationships with the US, Japan, China and, most notably, North Korea. That information is available in reliable sources, just because it's not in Wikipedia articles, it doesn't mean it isn't significant. Articles are seldom finished. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    The changes are no more significant than with the changes of leader of many countries - and we don't normally include changes of national leader. Jim Michael (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    The changes are internationally significant, particularly in regard to North Korea, which is why they're reported in international reliable sources such as CNN, The Guardian and The New York Times. The judgements of the incumbent oversighters has been seriously called into question. See the RFCs for three or four recent examples. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Proper closure

Ok, we need proper closure of these RFCs as the result will drastically affect the manner in which this RY project conducts itself. We now have a very clear picture on at least three or four of the discussions, so there's little stopping us implementing those consensuses and then seeking associated changes to process here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree we need proper closure by an Admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I see that this RfC has been added to the list requesting closure at WP:ANRFC by Davey2010 today, however all the sections above asking specific questions have already been closed. It is not clear what, if any, specific questions are actually being asked in the other sections so I am not sure what action is desired? Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

My apologies Thryduulf I actually requested the Deborah and Tommy RFCs below to be closed, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 18:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017/Archive_5&oldid=1142750807"