Talk:2021/Archive 3

Kenosha unrest shooting (Result: exclusion)

Unfortunately, I know the "American Wikipedia Bias" will come out on the ITN when Rittenhouse's verdict is announced exactly the same as the when the verdict came out on the Trial of Derek Chauvin (See below). But due to the international notability needed for this article, I personally believe the verdict (when announced) should not be listed here. Rittenhouse and the 3 people shot were American and even though the trial/shooting has some international sources, the actually shooting, trial, and verdict do not have any direct international notability. I am starting this discussion early so we can have a reason to not include (or include) ready for when the verdict is announced. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The See Below comment: If you did not know, when the verdict came in on the Trial of Derek Chauvin, the ITN had quick !votes to support, and minutes after being nominated (16 to be exact), an admin speedy closed it, even with some !votes of oppose. Multiple editors gave direct opinions, some without a real policy reason, which is ok on Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Rittenhouse? You can't put the trial of Derek Chauvin and the trial of Rittenhouse on the same level. The latter is the perpetrator of a shooting, one of many. We can't ascribe such notability to a judicial case because it happens in the United States. And if the trial doesn't get international attention... you have your answer. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The trials of Chauvin & Rittenhouse are both domestic US events, so they should be excluded. The only international aspect of the murder of George Floyd was the George Floyd protests. There's no international aspect of the Kenosha unrest & shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The Chauvin trial had some international significance because of the results of that crime. The Rittenhouse one has none. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Well we seem to have the consensus already that it will not be listed here, so once the verdict is announced, we can make a quick FAQ about it. I feel like some people will attempt to add it, so a FAQ will be useful. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The Chauvin trial is at most a borderline case due to the international significance of the Floyd murder (placing the spotlight on civil rights and police brutality which went beyond just the United States). The same cannot be said for the Rittenhouse trial, which is a clear cut case of a domestic event belonging in Year In Topic. Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The Chauvin trial has no international notability. The George Floyd protests were international, but happened before the trial. High-profile trials often receive international media coverage, but that doesn't mean they should be on main year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to say it again ... heavy and sustained international media coverage = international notability. Black Kite (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Using your definition, many domestic events (some of them quite trivial) would be regarded as internationally notable. I disagree that the Chauvin trial received heavy & sustained international media coverage. The coverage of the trial was much shorter than that of the protests, the latter of which are by far the biggest part of the series of events. Jim Michael (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

For now, I agree "man not guilty of crime, there are a few small protests" isn't weighty enough as it stands... if it later gets reported on in retrospect in multiple international sources I think it might earn it's way back in. JeffUK (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Awards (Result: status quo)

We routinely include Nobel Prizes, but not other major international awards, such as Olympic medals & Academy Awards. It's POV to say that Nobels are more important than the others; I don't think main year articles should include any awards. Jim Michael (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• We couldn't do Olympic medals because the page would be unreadable. The Academy awards may have an international section and award prizes to people of all nations but it is in the end the American Academy Awards (and where do you stop? Golden Globes? BAFTAS?). Nobel prizes are (a) compact - there aren't many, (b) voted for by an international panel and (c) important. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

No-one's disputing that Nobels are important, but including them & only them implies that they're the most important awards in the world. Jim Michael (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why it gets its own section; I think the Nobel Peace Prize award should normally be mentioned in the article as an event, and if any other particular award is given significant coverage beyond 'list of people who won the Nobel prize this year' that could be included too. JeffUK (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that Peace should usually be the only Nobel that should be mentioned on main year articles? Jim Michael (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's the only one that should routinely be mentioned as the peace prize itself is internationally renowned and notable; the others can stand on their own merits. Maybe actually just "xxth Nobel Prize Awards" as an event, with a link to the relevant article? We could put it in the events list and in the lead alongside the olympics. JeffUK (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Nobels should be a single entry in Events. They're not important enough for their own section. They aren't usually in the lead & aren't usually important enough to be. The Olympics aren't usually in the lead; they are this year only because they were unusually postponed from last year because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Jim Michael (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Template fix

I recently tried to update the Template:C21 year in topic with Weather of 2021. On the template page, it shows it correctly, but on the 2021 article, it shows it as a red link to "2021 Weather of", which doesn't make sense because that isn't what the template reads. Can anyone with a knowledge of the templates help fix whatever the issue is? Thanks. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

November photo (Result: Doo-hwan)

With the recent passings of Sir James Fitz-Allen Mitchell and Chun Doo-hwan, the picture has initially gone to Chun. I'm not disputing the choice, but I am curious as to how the decision was made.The Voivodeship King (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The latter is far more notable. Jim Michael (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Should we put a picture of Stephen Sondheim up? (Result: not done)

So how about it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.186.95 (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think there’s enough space yet, and we wouldn’t prioritise him over F.W. de Klerk or Chun Doo-hwan. Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

His should be the next photo to be added to this month's section of Deaths, because he's the third-most notable person to die during it. Jim Michael (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

To me, it's almost a three way tie between Sondheim, Aaron T. Beck (who came up with cognitive therapy), and Sir James Fitz-Allen Mitchell (second-longest serving Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines). Ultimately would be happy if it ends up being any of the three (although in the case of Mitchell we already have other leaders occupying the remaining November slots). Thescrubbythug (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Mitchell isn't even in the running. His country is tiny & each of the two current photos are of leaders of far more important countries. Beck could be considered instead of Sondheim. Jim Michael (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree with the premise of that at all. The size of a country and its population shouldn't be a factor here, and Mitchell was still a significant leader of his country (after all, he served as PM for over 16 years) - and besides it's not like figures from Saint Vincent and the Grenadines are often represented at all in the yearly pages, let alone have an image. Having said all that, I agree that he shouldn't be prioritised over the other leaders. De Klerk must be prioritised because of his notability as not only the last apartheid leader of South Africa, but also one of the central figures in dismantling that system, for which he won the Nobel Prize. While Chun must also be prioritised because he was notable (well, infamous) as a military dictator who took power in a coup and committed human rights atrocities, for which he was later convicted over. To put it another way, say Bill Clinton were to pass away before the end of November, I would argue against prioritising his image over De Klerk or Chun. I also think that for the sake of diversity so that it's not just political figures, we ought to prioritise Beck or Sondheim first over Mitchell for the third image once there's space for it. If there's space for a fourth image (which is looking unlikely at this stage), Mitchell should absolutely be considered. Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a consensus that all heads of state & gov are notable enough to be listed in Deaths of main year articles. However, some countries are much more important than others & therefore some leaders are far more important than others. The President of the United States is usually considered to be the world's most powerful person. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump & Joe Biden should have their photos in the Deaths sections of the years they die in, no matter who else dies during the same months as each of them. De Klerk is the most notable person to die this month, but he still has nowhere near the notability of Carter, Clinton, Trump or Biden. Countries with small populations are inherently going to be represented less, but that's not under-representation - it's proportionate. On here, in the media etc., San Marino isn't going to have anything like the representation of Brazil, Germany or Japan; Lesotho isn't going to have anything like the representation of Nigeria, Russia or China. Jim Michael (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria discussion (Result: inconclusive beyond already agreed upon criteria)

As has been voiced by GoodDay and multiple other users, there is recognition that there ought to be a discussion on the inclusion criteria for the birth/death sections of these yearly pages - Deb for example put it back in July that the 2021 page alone is already more than 50% over the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article. Until relatively recently, the line of thought on this was that the number of language articles or international news sources was sufficient for inclusion. However, as has been pointed out a few times, the former has been proven to be a poor metric for inclusions given that it can be easily manipulated by hardcore fans who are users here, as is the case of Corbin Bleu: https://www.insider.com/why-corbin-bleu-wikipedia-pages-2019-1. While for the latter, Jim Michael pointed out that if international media coverage proved international notability, we'd have to include hundreds of such people due to figures in areas such as sports and entertainment having large numbers of fans in other countries, even if not necessarily being household names.

Discussions here over the last half year or so have generally narrowed down three main areas that most urgently needed basic guidelines for inclusion: political figures, sports figures, and entertainment figures. Of these three, the only one which has so far saw major discussion that ended with the issue resolved are for political figures, where there was broad agreement on the inclusion of the following by these criteria:

1. Automatic inclusion: Heads of government/state (Prime Ministers, Presidents, Chancellors, Governor-Generals, etc.), figures regarded as central founding fathers of their nations, and heads of major intergovernmental organisations (such as the Secretary-General of the United Nations, President of the European Commission, etc.)

2. Considered for inclusion: Politicians who served as Foreign Affairs Minister, Secretary of State, Foreign Secretary, etc. whose actions were internationally notable and/or consequential.

3. Case-by-case basis: any other politicians (including deputy heads of government/state and Opposition leaders/Presidential candidates who failed to win an election) if they are internationally notable and/or consequential for reasons other than just holding the title of their office (such as those who won major international prizes such as the Nobel Prize)

So far as sports figures go, discussions did take place last month, although the main area of agreement that people generally came to was the inclusion of gold medal winners of international sports competitions (such as the Olympics), and that other contestants (including silver and bronze medalists) are only included on a case-by-case basis. Having said that, other key questions such as how to include important players from sports that aren't so widely played internationally (such as gridiron football, Aussie Rules football, or rugby league), or other sports (such as baseball and basketball) which are popularly played internationally but do not have major international competitions have yet to be fully resolved. While with entertainment figures there was general agreement on including figures who won major awards such as the Academy Awards (for films in the anglosphere) and the Asian Film Awards, and for musicians inductees of major hall of fames (i.e. the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame) - although there still needs to be greater discussion regarding entertainment figures.

Hopefully we can build on these and help settle the longstanding issue of inclusion criteria for these pages. Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• While for the latter, Jim Michael pointed out that if international media coverage proved international notability, we'd have to include hundreds of such people due to figures in areas such as sports and entertainment having large numbers of fans in other countries, even if not necessarily being household names." I'd dispute this. "Not being a household name" isn't a bar to appearing on this page, as you will see by the number of obscure politicians, scientists, etc. I'd argue that international media coverage of someone's death (unless the death itself is the story) and the quality of associated obituaries is actually the *best* metric of notability. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  I haven't said that being a household name or not is or should be part of our inclusion criteria. Some people in the Deaths section are clearly internationally notable but most people haven't heard of them. In some cases, that's true even of the country the person is from. My point about international media coverage stands in that a notable person (especially a sportsperson or entertainer) can have little or no international notability (no international performances, awards, achievements etc.) yet have a substantial number of fans outside their country. Such a person's death is likely to receive media coverage in countries in which they had a substantial number of fans. This was seen this month with the deaths of Sarah Harding & Michael K. Williams. Jim Michael (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  We should therefore remove Tanya Roberts, Captain Sir Tom Moore, since they don't have the " international notability " and yet they're on simply because of their inherent fame.

  I agree, Roberts & Moore shouldn't be here. Jim Michael (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  I haven't checked Roberts, but Moore has multiple obituaries from all over the English-speaking world, including the NYT - and wasn't a "sportsperson or entertainer" with "fans outside their country" which seems to be a problem for some people. Also has 41 foreign language entries. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  As stated above,the foreign language entries don't mean much anymore becuase it would mean that Corbin Bleu would be on the death list were he to die right now.

  What international notability does Moore have? Jim Michael (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  Well, one can turn that on its head and say that if Moore did not have international notability, why the multiple international obituaries (including as I'll stress again the NYT, which simply doesn't throw out obituaries to obscurities). Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  WW2 veteran fundraises at age 99 - it's a story that the media & many of the general public in various countries find interesting, inspiring etc. Jim Michael (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  And reliable media sources in multiple countries covering a story = notability. That's exactly how WP:N works! Black Kite (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  Based on that reasoning, the death of Gabby Petito is one of the most notable events of this year & should be included. Many mainstream media sources in various countries treat it as one of the biggest news stories of the year, so we must include it, even though the case has no international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Wouldn't bother me, to be honest (in the News stories, not in the Deaths section obviously though, as she's not notable except for her death). Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  If we include in the Events section things which have no international notability simply because they are covered by the media of multiple countries, we'd include notable people becoming engaged, marrying, having kids, separating, writing books, filming TV shows, recording albums, winning events & awards, being arrested, being diagnosed with illnesses etc. The Events sections of main year articles are for events of major international notability. Many media orgs report domestic stories from other countries because it gains them more pageviews, sells more copies of newspapers, magazines etc. We should go by international notability, not international reporting. Jim Michael (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  I really don't want to press the point but international reporting is what drives, in a Wikipedia sense, international notability. After all, a newspaper in, say, Greece wouldn't write about the death of someone from, say, Mexico unless their readers were going to be genuinely interested in the story. Major news sources generally don't write about people who are unknown in their own country purely because they think they should be more well-known than they are, after all. And yes, this leads to an imbalance in favour of sportspeople and entertainers. Black Kite (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  In many cases, a person whose career has no international element will have many interested people in many countries due to fans living there. For example, an actor whose performances are all in one country & who doesn't win any international awards could be well-known in many countries due to at least one of his films, TV shows etc. being internationally popular. When he dies, it's likely that many media sources will report his death because they know that many readers will want to know. I don't see that as international notability. If we include people on the basis of merely having fans in other countries we'd need to include many extra people each year, most of whom will be entertainers & sportspeople. Jim Michael (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Heads of state and government, viceroys (I.e. Governors-General), and heads of religions should merit automatic inclusion, I agree. I also agree that major sports figures and actors should be included based on how recognizable they are worldwide. For example; Betty White, Sidney Poitier, and Mel Brooks will all likely be gone within 5-10 years. They all have huge significance and should be included. When, say, Bob Barker dies, I would argue against his inclusion as he’s a former game show host of a strictly AMERICAN game show. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Presenters rarely have significant international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

While for the most part I'm in agreement (especially when it comes to figures like White, Poitier, Brooks, Dick Van Dyke, Angela Lansbury, etc.), the point about Bob Barker naturally brings to question Alex Trebek (as well as Regis Philbin, though he's not on the 2020 page at the time of writing), who passed away last year and was automatically included (initially with an image, too). Should he also be removed as well under the same grounds? Thescrubbythug (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Trebek is notable in both Canada & the US. Exclude the other presenters mentioned. Jim Michael (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thescrubbythug - In general, I agree with this initiative. Deb (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, Evereyone. Let's get back on track and see if we can create some basic criteria for sportspeople. Our first issue is what I believe Jim's point was - the difference between international notability and international coverage. I'd say that coverage is too broad - coverage can be quoted as short articles on news sites that mightn't even garner mention on the 6PM News. Notability - it would seem that notability is the ability to walk up to somebody and have a conversation about them on the spot. I think we should classify sports into notability categories to define their importance and then individual criteria for each sport, notice how importantly we rate it. Something like this: Level 1 (Global) - football Level 2 (Large International) - tennis Level 3 (Small International) - basketball, Level 4 (Regional) - cricket, baseball Level 5 (Domestic) - American football, gaelic football, Australian rules football

Any comments? The Voivodeship King (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Deciding criteria for sportspeople's inclusion is probably the most difficult, because of how many sports, organisations, awards etc. there are. It's very difficult to compare the international notability of an outstanding person in a minor sport to that of a well-known but fairly mediocre one in a world-famous sport.

The actor James Michael Tyler is an excellent recent example of how international media coverage can be substantial despite the person having no international notability. His domestic notability is minor. The only reason for the wide international mainstream media reporting of his death is that he played a supporting role in a sitcom which is popular in many countries. A similar thing could happen with a sportsperson's death, especially if (s)he's a likeable underdog. Jim Michael (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that classifying sports into different tier levels is a great start, though I'd consider eliminating "regional" and moving cricket and baseball to "small international". And where would rugby union and rugby league fit into this - among other sports? But yes, I would agree with Jim Michael that we must resolve the points that he raised (and he's 100% on the money regarding Tyler and international media coverage). Thescrubbythug (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Classifying sports into different categories of importance is one of the problems related to creating inclusion criteria for sportspeople. There are various sportpeople who have fans who will argue that they're the best or one of the best in their sport, position, era etc. Some sportspeople are popular but don't have much notability; some are successful but not liked by many. Jim Michael (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, it goes without saying that the likability of somebody has less than zero relevance when it comes to who should be included on these lists. I suppose when it comes to sportspeople within various categories, depending on the category we include figures on a case by case basis. I don't think it's practical for example to include every inductee of say, the Baseball Hall of Fame due to its parochial nature. With the more domestic sports such as gridiron and Aussie Rules, it'd be tricky but we should probably limit it to the most significant figures - their equivalents of Donald Bradman, if you get what I mean. Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The fact that a person meets some definition of 'Important' that's above 'Notable' is inherently subjective. We already have articles for notable deaths in each month. I propose a different approach; I think this article be for people whose deaths are, to some extent, notable. One could start from something like the below (Base-line: They must be a notable person (they have an article))

1. There is a 'Death of...' article for them. (Automatic inclusion)
2. Their death is widely discussed beyond merely as basic obituary (either their death itself, or the impact of their death in the future) (Basically WP:DUE)

The death of a relatively unknown athlete Agnes Tirop would be included in this system because her death is notable and reported widely, but the death of Olympic champion Jerry_Shipp would not. David Amess would be included as a politician who is relatively junior, but who's death is notable. etc. JeffUK (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Including individuals notable for their deaths alone would convolute this article and increase its size far too much. It is already larger than the recommended size for a page. In short, I strongly disagree with the above points. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You're somehow missing that I explicitly said people must be notable for them to be included, To be even more explicit; people who are notable for reasons other than their deaths AND who's deaths are notable enough to have and sustain their own article should absolutely be included. e.g. The existence of Death of Harry Dunn would not allow for (that) Harry Dunn to be included. (although maybe as an event) Conversely, I would see many, many, of the people listed here removed. Because the fact that (e.g.) an 86 year old former athlete died this year really has little relevance to the year itself, because the death itself was not a notable event. There's a subtle distinction between "2020 was the year that Kobe Bryant died" and "Jerry Shipp died in 2021" JeffUK (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Main year articles should include the deaths of all people who have significant international notability. Using your criteria would mean that many people people who fit that description would be excluded because their deaths receive little media coverage due to them dying naturally in old age, years after they retired. Jim Michael (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Main year articles should include the deaths of all people who have significant international notability" I disagree, I think they should include all notable deaths of notable people. If someone has ``significant`` notability then their death will be widely reported. The death of someone who may have been well known, but their death is reported only because their family put an obituary in their local newspaper does not necessarily have due weight to be added to the 2021-in-everything, article, but will of course be in the other lists, which aim to be more comprehensive. Others have noted that these articles are getting very long and hard for readers to use. JeffUK (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

A person can have significant international notability & their death not be widely reported because the media know that the large majority of their readers/viewers won't be interested. For example, scientists & academics who have major accomplishments & are well-known in their field but have never had popularity among the general public in their home country, let alone outside it. Jim Michael (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is to determine what classes as 'significant international notability', using the term without defining it doesn't help. If no reliable sources give their death more than a passing mention they do not belong in this page. We should let the sources dictate whether or not someone's death has due weight for an article about this year. An attempt to do otherwise is why we have to come up with arbitrary, inarticulable, inclusion criteria. JeffUK (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

For the Deaths section, the inclusion criteria of significant international notability applies to the people who die, not to their deaths. How much media coverage the deaths receive isn't relevant, as long as we have a RS to say that each has died. Deaths of people that have a lot of international notability can receive very little media coverage if they're old, long-retired & die naturally. Deaths of people who have no international notability & little national notability can receive a lot of media coverage if they and/or their work are well-known. That's what happened with James Michael Tyler, a small-time actor known primarily for a supporting role in one very internationally popular sitcom. Jim Michael (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it not exactly those inclusion criteria that are supposed to be under discussion here? By just saying 'the inclusion criteria say...' to support an argument for not changing the inclusion criteria is circular reasoning at best. Why do you not think that notable people who's deaths are notable, should not be included in the deaths list? Why don't you like the idea that it should be 'notable deaths' and not 'people who were once notable who have died'? JeffUK (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m not going to get into a protracted argument like on the Amess thread, so all I’m going to say is that I’m in complete agreement with PeaceInOurTime and Jim Michael. What we have of our inclusion criteria so far has served us well since it was introduced, even if there are a few kinks that need to be sorted (particularly regarding sports figures), and it has helped substantially reduce any bias towards the inclusions of figures from any specific, individual country. The proposed alternative would essentially allow for people who lacked notability and were obscure in life (beyond their home country) to be included purely on the basis of if the manner of their deaths grabbed enough global headlines. Just having sufficient notability to have a Wikipedia article written about you does not automatically mean any article is entitled for inclusion here. Nor does it take into account Year In Topic, and the purpose of “2021 in insert country” so that notable domestic figures of a particular country could be included while at the same time lacking sufficient international notability for inclusion on the main page. That essentially is my two cents on the matter. Thescrubbythug (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

" The proposed alternative would essentially allow for people who lacked notability..." am proposing this applies to people who are WP:Notable other than for the manner of their deaths and whose deaths are notable. "just having sufficient notability to have a Wikipedia article written about you does not automatically mean any article is entitled for inclusion here." I agree, no-one is arguing for this. JeffUK (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You're arguing for a major change which no-one else has said they want, so there won't be consensus for it. The consensus is that the Deaths section of each main year article includes all the people who die that year who have substantial international notability, with no requirement that their deaths be notable. Most of the arguments in regard to inclusion are about who is or is not notable enough. There are major problems with the change you suggest. It would mean including people of low notability whose deaths receive a lot of media coverage, including James Michael Tyler. It would also exclude people of high international notability whose deaths receive little media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Your description of 'the problem' is restating exactly what I have proposed. That's a feature, not a problem, but I understand you do not like the idea. JeffUK (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a problem because it goes against consensus as well as the purpose of year articles. You want to change the inclusion criteria for deaths well away from our current & previous criteria, requiring them to be well-publicised (thereby excluding some very important scientists & academics) as well as reducing the amount of notability required (thereby including some low-notability entertainers). The focus of the Deaths section has always been deaths of important people rather than important deaths. Jim Michael (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

One last note. Thank you to all the people who put time towards making the criteria for politicians. I just think there is too much debate, which seems to end in plain argument over criteria for sportspeople. We're all volunteers on this site and we're all willing to put in time to make 2021 a good Wiki page. I think for the time being we can go on the case by case basis for any further deceased sportspeople. I didn't get Bob Fulton (see above), but I understand why others are opposed, keeping in mind it's the international space. Let's keep it constructive as much as we can and do some good.The Voivodeship King (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Sport is the most difficult & complicated field to judge the international notability of. Jim Michael (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@CountingStars500: I alert you to this discussion. Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Births & Deaths sections (Result: both to be removed if figure in question is deemed to lack sufficient international notability)

Many people have been added to the Births sections of main year articles despite having little or no international notability, so being on there doesn't mean they should also be on the Deaths sections of the main year articles of the years of their deaths; in many cases they should be removed from Births. Likewise, vice versa. However, do we agree that each dead person should be either on both? If they're internationally notable enough, on both; if not, on neither? Or are there any circumstances in which a dead person should be on one & not the other? If so, on what grounds? Jim Michael (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any circumstance where a figure who is deemed not notable or significant enough for inclusion on one of the main yearly page should also be included on the other. Usually those that are included on one (usually the Birth page) but not on the other are done so due to pages for earlier years being less regulated, and therefore users are much better able to add minor figures with it going undetected for years. And of course not everybody has the time and patience to go through every yearly page and do a clean-up. But yeah, they should also be removed from Births straight away if they are deemed unsuitable for here. Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I will be simple: if they don't have notability when they die, they don't have it when they are born. So I would delete every one of them who are included in Births and with whose death it was agreed that they would not be included in one of the recent years. It's a lot of work, but necessary. In fact, I've sometimes fallen into a year of the last century and removed people who were not of international relevance (mainly members of the US statal parliaments). I think Deb could contribute a lot to this discussion. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There are of course instances where a person's date of birth is known, but not their date of death, and vice versa, so it can't be a hard and fast rule, but in general I agree. Deb (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

In those cases, they should be included in their relevant main year article's Birth/Death section if the year is known. Jim Michael (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree, Jim. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Others brought up during Dole discussion (Result: all except Ash and Ghabroyan included)

Some of the people mentioned during the Bob Dole discussion clearly have substantial international notability (including members of FIFA World Cup-winning teams), so should clearly be included. Some clearly have no international notability (including entertainers & domestic sportspeople), so clearly shouldn't be. The following all died this year & have some international notability, so which of them should be included in Deaths: Eileen Ash, Bertie Auld, Francisco Brines, Gregory Peter XX Ghabroyan, Ray Kennedy, Rick Mitchell, Francesco Morini, Danilo Popivoda, Walter Smith, Ivan Toplak? Jim Michael (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Retain Auld, Brines, and Morini. Kennedy borderline. Exclude the others. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Retain any of those who were in FIFA winning teams, and retain Brines. Neutral on Auld and Kennedy. Mitchell is a borderline case so long as the question of whether or not to include individual gold medalists from the Commonwealth Games remains unresolved. Exclude the rest. TheScrubby (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Gregory Peter XX Ghabroyan was the head of the Armenian Catholic Church, so he's notable. In strong disagreement on the move of PeaceInOurTime2021 and in agreement with keeping and removing those above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to restore Ghabroyan’s entry if several users agree he’s notable enough. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Should the heads of all denominations of all religions be included in main year articles? Jim Michael (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

No they should not, but if a consensus develops to restore Ghabroyan to the list, I’ll accept it, though I don’t agree he should be included. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: I invite you to give your two cents on this thread. TheScrubby (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

None of these people are important enough in a global sense. Ash got 38 runs and 10 wickets, not alot. Auld has no international goals, 3 appearances. Brines has no non-Spanish coverage. Ghabroyan is only important in a Armenian sense. Kennedys article looks impressive from a GA POV but he only has 3 international goals. Mitchell participated in a boycotted olympics and the Commonwealth Games are by their nature globally restrictive, would a Lawn Bowls player be included? Morini has no international goals - his article says he was excluded from the team during his peak. Popivoda has 5 international goals. Smith has no international appearances as a player and he's not a globally famous manager, purely a Scotland football figure. Toplak has a olympics bronze in a normal olympics, so if this matters than sure keep him since it said he was the main figure of that win. The rest are extremely minor and should not qualify. GuzzyG (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Bob Dole (Result: exclusion)

Senator Dole; does he have the international relevance to remain on the page or doesn’t he? Please discuss below; PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

His notoriety is centered on being a candidate for the U.S. presidency and a long-time senator. International relevance is nil because he is a very domestic political figure. Debates of this type we have already had several times, btw. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

He was a significant domestic political figure within the US, but we do not include failed Presidential candidates or failed VP candidates - just as we wouldn’t for equivalent figures from other countries. Does not meet the political figures criteria here, and is not suitable for inclusion here, let alone with an image (which somebody tried to add already). We have Mondale here, but even he’s a very borderline case - and he actually served as VP. But yeah, clear cut case which belongs in 2021 in the United States. Thescrubbythug (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Turns out that at least two of the main participants arguing for Dole's inclusion were in reality just a single person.

Bob Dole SHOULD be included since he has more international relevance then most people on the entire list since January. There's only a handful of people I counted on the list of deaths with more international recognition. If Dole shouldn't be included gotta delete a bunch of people. CountingStars500 (talk) 6 December 2021 Perhaps in the domestic American political scene, but certainly not internationally. This is not 2021 in the United States, where he is already included. It would be a blatant act of Americentrism to include him when we exclude his equivalent figures from elsewhere, as per our political figures guideline, which you can look through if you scroll up to “Inclusion criteria discussions”. Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC) I beg to differ. I and most people I know, know of Bob Dole. None of us are American. Your assumption that only Americans heard of Bob Dole is erroneous. Don't call me Americancentrist when I'm not even American. CountingStars500 (talk) 6 December 2021 We don’t add people here based on anecdotal “evidence”, nor have we ever done so. Americentrist means you favour domestic American figures when their international equivalents wouldn’t even get a look-in. Furthermore, don’t start edit warring. Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC) How come International publications are reporting about Bob Dole? Little strange to say that the world at large are a bunch of uneducated idiots according to you, as a non-American I find that a little offensive. Bob Dole has international relevance according to international sources. Such as BBC and CBC, Japanese news outlets, Chinese, etc. Dole survived well known battles in World War II. I don't know why you think he doesn't have international name recognition. - CountingStars500 (talk) 6 December 2021 International coverage does not equate to international notability/significance, which is something that has been discussed time and again on this Talk page. Dole is receiving international coverage because he happened to run as a major party Presidential candidate in the United States - consensus here is generally against including political figures who served as Opposition leaders or Presidential nominees but failed to win, and we are not going to make American figures an exception to that. Dole's significance as a political figure is purely domestic. His war service is irrelevant unless we decided we would include everybody who happened to fight in the war and survived severe wounds, which would expand the article to a farcical degree. I suggest reading through the discussions that have taken place here regarding the inclusion on political figures (something which, along with entertainment and sports figures, has been a focus of much discussion here throughout this year) before taking this any further. Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC) I would think that would be a fair argument if it was consistent. Unfortunately, it's not, I would be fine with not including Dole if you didn't have such an inconsistent contradictory argument but still think that low-level athletes should get included even though they only played for a small local team? It makes no sense. Also, "Dole's significance as a political figure is purely domestic" is erroneous. Bob Dole had foreign policy experience in regards to Kosovo and Armenia. Please remind me when Kosovo and Armenia became states of the United States? - CountingStars500 (talk) 6 December 2021 On the first point, there has been a lot of discussion here r.e. sports figures, and there's a recognition that it's the most challenging category to deal with. However, we most certainly do not include "low-level" athletes who played for a small local team. Sports figures who are usually included include figures who won (individual) gold medals for their country at international sports competitions such as the Olympics, and notable players of sports which are widely played globally such as soccer and cricket (I could go on, but it would be better to direct you to the relevant discussion threads here, such as "Inclusion criteria discussion" and "Criteria for inclusion of sportspeople in Deaths"). In any case, it's hard to compare sports figures to political figures when it comes to these discussions. As for your second point r.e. foreign policy, Alsoriano summed it up well. Dole also never served as Secretary of State, and foreign policy was not his main point of notability. It would set a horrible precedent to include him on that basis, as already expressed succinctly by Alsoriano. Thescrubbythug (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC) @Thescrubbythug "However, we most certainly do not include "low-level" athletes who played for a small local team." Except that you HAVE. Examples include: Eileen Ash, Horst Eckel, Ray Kennedy, Bertie Auld, Ron Flowers, Walter Smith, Roger Hunt, Jimmy Greaves, Danilo Popivoda, Francesco Morini. But, refuse to include someone who was given awards by multiple countries from political work (Bob Dole). - CountingStars500 (talk) 6 December 2021 All of those figures invariably were included because they represented their countries in international sports competitions - which does not equate "small local team". I reiterate that there is recognition that sports figures is the toughest field to sort out in terms of inclusion criteria. You're fully welcome to contribute and give your two cents on which sports figures ought to be included or excluded, but not to use it as a point in a false comparison, which is frankly counterproductive. Thescrubbythug (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Are you kidding us? Hundreds of politicians around the world have this "foreign policy expertise". Even very unknown mayors and politicians! Don't undervalue either our work here or the other people included. As Thescrubby said, take your time to read the discussions preceding this one before you continue to disrespect. Your arguments are very misguided. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC) It's not disrespect to wonder why extremely minor; human interest stories like Eileen Ash (whose crown achievement is 38 runs in international cricket) get added - who will never be major historical figures; but not major politicians of major states (who will be written about, who will be historical figures). This list is thus filled with minor European athletes and minor European cultural figures like Francisco Brines (who won a prize only important in one language; internationally on a minor technical point of that language being a big coloniser language and thus spread to a continent; but a American writer would not get this acknowledgement) who get a easy pass due to the ease of passing notability because of the Schengen Area . Obviously new people to this kind of standard, will express dismay at such a list. Please be civil and don't be belittling to new editors here. Noone WP:OWN's this list. GuzzyG (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Disrespect in form, not in content. Eileen Ash was added later and should not be included either. And about Brines you are very wrong. The Cervantes prize is the "most prestigious and remunerative award given for Spanish-language literature" which, in case you didn't know, is the second most native language in the world (above English) and the fourth most spoken. I'm sure you wouldn't think the same about the Booker Prize winners. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Generally no; but by this lists standards yes - the Man Booker is restricted to English speaking countries and like American culture; mass promoted because of that - but a Man Booker isn't important in Saudi Arabia or to China. The Cervantes prize is worse off. Is there even 10 obits of Brines not in Spanish? It's ludicrous to think he is a major historical figure, one befitting of such a strict list. GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Also not to mention; some of that argument is factually incorrect; Andrew Peacock is listed and he's a opposition leader who lost at elections. One would wonder why we would give exceptions to Australia; in which it is less a major country on the world stage than the United States.. GuzzyG (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Peacock was not included because he served as Opposition leader though. He was one of Australia's most prominent Foreign Ministers (which as per the inclusion criteria for political figures, we generally give more leeway to than other politicians besides heads of government/state, including Opposition leaders), and it was his work to do with Papua New Guinea which led to his inclusion - a borderline case, but Mondale was borderline as well (and I note you didn't mention him and how he also lost an election as a Presidential candidate; in any event he certainly wasn't included because of that either). This has already been discussed months ago though, and this thread should really be focused on Dole. Thescrubbythug (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Some kind of imaginary "international" achievement is irrelevant; this list should be important historical figures. Any main politician from G20 countries should be listed. This is the peak of international vitality; not the Olympics. A method that lists Danilo Popivoda but not Dole is not a historical one but Deaths in Europe in 2021 and one that is failing in making sense. GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC) And if we took your suggestion, it would mean too many domestic politicians within "major" countries and with little-to-no international significance would be included - and would also allow American figures to be disproportionately included, as has been an issue in the past where minor figures such as John B. Anderson were added without question for years. The criteria we have for political figures that we came up with months ago has served us well, in terms of keeping predominately domestic politicians to a minimum and reducing the overall number of political figures added. Once again, false comparison r.e. Popivoda. Furthermore, I think over the last half-year we've done a good job in averting what you feared would turn out to be a Euro-centric list, and that we've ensured good representation of figures from around the world rather than having it being mainly from the English-speaking world (and more specifically, America). Thescrubbythug (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC) No; this list is mostly very minor figures already - like Eileen Ash. But let's analyse this claim; just how bad off are these "domestic" politicians. Going by G20 countries; here are all politicians who lost the election of a year around the same time frame as Bob Dole; not included are countries without elections like Saudi Arabia or countries in which both people have held a position which would qualify them for this list anyway. (some times i've included the third candidate; as both main ones have been leader). José Octavio Bordón, Kim Beazley, Ciro Gomes, Preston Manning, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Joschka Fischer, L. K. Advani, Umberto Bossi, Akbar Tandjung, Ichirō Ozawa, Diego Fernández de Cevallos, Gennady Zyuganov, Chung Ju-yung, Devlet Bahçeli and Neil Kinnock - except the Argentine, Mexican and Indonesian leaders all the articles are decent and informative; showing that these people are infinitely more important than any of the minor Olympians listed. The only thing that keeps them off this list is this rule itself; all should be added eventually; like Dole. Ignoring these important political leaders; (in which political leaders are arguably the most important people in history behind religious founders); let's put this list into a cultural sense - you're a Aussie; so say this - we don't list Bert Newton or David Gulpilil - both major important Australian cultural figures; one had a state funeral and the other major calls for one; who do we list instead? Rick Mitchell; a sprinter noone in Australia knows; who gets 34k views in total [1] and who won a silver medal in a boycotted olympics. It's ludicrous to think this guy is a representative of Australia but not the two massive cultural symbols inside of it. It just makes no sense - all based on some imaginary sense of "international" (in a boycott) achievement. GuzzyG (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC) I find it interesting that you just criticised Peacock's inclusion (not just now, but in April, on grounds which ultimately were not why he was included), and yet going by your criteria he should be included without question. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's a false comparison to compare sports figures to political figures due to how inherently different the categories are, so I'm not going to comment beyond the fact (as frustrating as it is to go down this red herring in a thread about Dole) that consensus here is to include just Olympians who won individual gold medals representing their countries. As previously stated over and over again (including on this thread several times now - actually at this point I may as well copy and paste), "there is recognition that sports figures is the toughest field to sort out in terms of inclusion criteria. You're fully welcome to contribute and give your two cents on which sports figures ought to be included or excluded, but not to use it as a point in a false comparison, which is frankly counterproductive". As for Mitchell, he was included not because he won silver in the Olympics, but because he won gold in the Commonwealth Games. Granted, a borderline case - largely because there is no firm consensus either way here r.e. gold medalists from the Commonwealth Games. But if only the Olympics are deemed relevant enough, then he should probably be removed, yes. Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC) I didn't criticise it; i compared this statement "means you favour domestic American figures when their international equivalents wouldn’t even get a look-in"; when Dole's equivalent did get listed, in your own country. I support Peacock's inclusion (like i would any G20 equivalent leader - this is the peak of international notability - again, not the olympics) and note that this list is not cluttered with his inclusion either. Sports is not tough ; but maybe it is when people who have reached the top rank of sports like Bob Fulton and Tochinoumi Teruyoshi have to be kept off in a pick and choose way for the cricketer who scored 38 runs or the footballer who scored 3 international goals and is a perma stub. All these problems are this lists own doing. There's no such thing as a person inherently important in a global sense; only in very, very rare cases like Nelson Mandela. The list should go off merits to their field. Danilo Popivoda is not important to the history of football and shouldn't be listed; but say Tochinoumi Teruyoshi is important to one of Japan's most important homegrown cultural products (Sumo) and thus should be listed; anything less is just odd. If Danilo Popivoda is not in the grand scheme of things an important footballer, how is he important enough for this list? There's no sense here. Commonwealth Games is a isolated event; inherently anti global in nature - relegated to athletes from a select group of countries. I don't see how this is anymore "global" than the boycotted olympics and bias if medals in the Asian Games and Pan American Games don't count. GuzzyG (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC) If you would like to discuss issues with sports criteria (of which I agree is far from perfect, and I have also indicated support for the inclusion of champions from such games as the Asian Games), feel free to start a new, separate thread which raises the issues you brought up rather than derailing the thread to do with Dole. Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC) If we are talking about politicians, If Henry Kissinger were to die right now, he should be on the list, because he was notable worldwide for his many actions involving the Vietnam War, Yom Kippur War. Bob Dole on the other hand was known for what ? Being a long time US Politician ? ( I like Dole by the way ), but his actions were not internationally notable in the Politicians category. Hillary Clinton might be a difficult case to figure out. We already figured out Walter Mondale because he made the US Vice Presidency much more powerful. That being said, we should be fair and remove people such as Michael Foot who was an equilvant of Bob Dole in a way, failed party leader. Long time politician, and yet he was included back in 2010. Or Jack Layton, the former Canadian politician who was a leader of his party in Canada, and he was also included upon his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:7D3D:A4C7:95C0:9388 (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Bob Dole had international recognition through his work in Armenia and Kosovo. He deserves to be on the list. So, many people on the list do not belong due to lack of significance. Add Dole. I’m not a Dole supporter, but acknowledge his accomplishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:982:A200:254A:5407:B397:C551 (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Dole was known for being a supporter of Kosovo and an advocate for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, but they were not central to his notability and it would be a stretch to include him on that basis - as @Alsoriano97: already explained. It would also imply that Dole was the central figure (or one of) in the establishment of Kosovo, or being the biggest influence in the recognition of the genocide globally. Henry Kissinger will certainly be included in the event of his death as one of the most internationally consequential US Secretaries of State, as well as the fact that he is a Nobel recipient (however controversial the award was). Likewise, Hillary Clinton will likely be added due to her own consequential actions in the same portfolio. Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC) You're incorrect. Bob Dole was one of the central figures in the establishment of Kosovo. Keep in mind Kosovo has a statue of Bob Dole. A literal memorial to Bob Dole is in Kosovo. - CountingStars500 (talk) 7 December 2021 Are there any reputable sources that explicitly cite Dole as not just a (albeit staunch) supporter, but also a central figure in the establishment and independence of Kosovo? A country which, for the record, has a reputation for building landmarks and memorials named after US political figures (https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/why-is-kosovo-becoming-a-museum-in-honour-of-us-politicians-40055). Does this mean Eliot Engel ought to be included as well for being an active supporter of Kosovo and having a boulevard named after him there? Thescrubbythug (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC) All those people have a direct link to Kosovo too. Also, to answer your question "Does this mean Eliot Engel ought to be included as well for being an active supporter of Kosovo and having a boulevard named after him there?" No, because Engel is alive. I don't know why you think minor figures, even in their own countries should be added but internationally known figures should not? - CountingStars500 (talk) 8 December 2021 It was a hypothetical question, obviously I meant in the event of Engel’s death - just as how others have asked precisely the same hypothetical question (not just in this thread, but others in this Talk page) about Kissinger, H. Clinton, the other Opposition leaders namechecked by GuzzyG, etc. As to your point r.e. Kosovo, I again refer back to the central point made by Alsoriano. Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC) I read back this thread and Alsoriano made no comment of the sort. According to Kosovo Bob Dole had an effect on their formation, he was a leading figure according to Kosovo itself. I don't think your personal unawareness of the international recognition of Dole is grounds for exclusion. - CountingStars500 (talk) 8 December 2021 Alsoriano’s central point is that your arguments are misguided; that your claims of foreign policy significance lacks substance; and that you should read through the discussions that have taken place on this page throughout the year r.e. inclusion of political figures. “According to Kosovo” makes zero sense either, and I ask again: “Are there any reputable sources that explicitly cite Dole as not just a (albeit staunch) supporter, but also a central figure in the establishment and independence of Kosovo?”. At this point it almost feels like we’re going around in circles with this discussion. Thescrubbythug (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC) I actually HAVE read the inclusion of political figures as Number 3 states:"Case-by-case basis: any other politicians (including deputy heads of government/state and Opposition leaders/Presidential candidates who failed to win an election) if they are internationally notable and/or consequential for reasons other than just holding the title of their office (such as those who won major international prizes such as the Nobel Prize) Bob Dole helped with the formation of Kosovo. He also was a chairman of an International organization, and heads of international organizations ARE included on death lists, heads of the United Nations, the ICMP, NATO, WHO, etc. So why exclude Bob Dole, who was chairman of the ICMP? I've been pointing this out continuously! It's in the list of criteria. How about you read the criteria? -CountingStars500 (talk) 8 December 2021 @User: CountingStars500 I'm wondering the same thing. What separates Bob Dole from other chairman/chairwoman of other International organizations whose been included over the years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:982:A200:F4C8:DF4A:F47:B4C3 (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC) It said “major intergovernmental organisations” not “every”, and an organisation to do with missing persons can hardly be considered major, or remotely on a comparable scale to say, the United Nations. Once again, you have failed to provide any reputable sources that support your claim that Dole was a central figure in the establishment and independence of Kosovo, as I have asked several times; they have so far all been unsubstantiated claims that inflate Dole’s significance to Kosovo (“Bob Dole helped with the formation of Kosovo”, among other comments). Do not insult my intelligence. Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Exclude Foot, Layton & Dole due to lacking substantial international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC) The ICMP is a part of International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court, both of which are branches of the United Nations therefore making it a major organization. Just because you want to skip my sources about Dole doesn't mean that I haven't shown you Dole's significance in Kosovo. Here's a link of the contributions Dole made in Kosovo's formation: https://gazetadielli.com/letter-of-appreciation-for-senator-bob-dole/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJHBNB98r6A And the expression "Do not insult my intelligence" is a common phrase of those who suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect, you sound like a robot. - CountingStars500 (talk) 9 December 2021 Also, Bob Dole was the lead negotiator for the Americans in Kosovo. He was the head of the delegation:https://books.google.ca/books?id=X5sa90AEvi0C&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=Bob+Dole+lead+US+delegation+kosovo&source=bl&ots=pkup3lLrYm&sig=ACfU3U1oetKi1buopNrX9hwB1SV2aIg1_Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9oLrVrdb0AhVppFsKHXYYA4Y4ChDoAXoECBkQAw#v=onepage&q=Bob%20Dole%20lead%20US%20delegation%20kosovo&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:982:A200:50D1:9EFF:E5B8:6FA2 (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Countingstars I think you should relax. You aren't helping it to be a calm discussion. If Dole was so important to the constitution of Kosovo as an independent state, why doesn't his wikibio explain it? Why doesn't the Kosovo article talk about him either? For God's sake, if being the head of a delegation and visiting the country means that he is a leading figure of this transition, it's an insult to those Kosovars who did make that struggle and to other people who were transcendental in the sovereignty processes of other countries, such as Jorge Sampaio. He is not even recognized as such in this country. You have a very bad vision of these processes, because many people participate in them and not all of them can, nor should, be included. I'm sure that if Dole had not existed, Kosovo would have been independent anyway. The same cannot be said of other people. And that it was a chair of the ICMP.... well, as Thescrubby says, they have to be from the "major" organizations, especially if they depend on the UN. And this is not the case. It does not count, sorry. I think it's time to close this discussion. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Alsoriano97 I checked his Wikibio and it mentions it. Also, the WHO is also an arm of the UN, and their heads are included. Both of you are working backwards from your conclusion. Here's a source that says he was considered a leading figure: https://www.gazetatema.net/en/many-personalities-in-kosovo-saddened-by-the-death-of-us-senator-bob-dole/. Also, 98% of the people on the death list have such a low international recognition (or even within their country) So many people on the list needs an 'Importance?' notice next to them. Bob Dole clearly is more notable than most of the list. - CountingStars500 (talk) 9 December 2021 Yeah, there’s really not much left to say without further repeating ourselves and going around in further circles. In terms of prominence and significance, it would be ludicrous to suggest that the ICMP is at all comparable to the WHO. Alsoriano is 100% correct, and even in the last source you cited, Dole is generally described as a key supporter and advocate for Kosovo on the American side - and if we included everybody with that sort of description, it would set an extremely problematic precedent when it comes to inclusions here. Particularly when it comes off as trying to get Dole included on what would amount to a technicality, at best. Everything from “Also, 98% of the people..” onwards does not deserve to be dignified with a response. At this point, it would be best for everybody, including yourself, if you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, and I think we’ll leave it at that. Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC) The ICMP had a direct effect in the prosecution of Slobodan Milosevic. I'm not repeating myself, you're not even looking at the sources I posted, since you're working backwards from your conclusion. You're resorting to the drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass because you have no substantive rebuttal. You accept people with 4 subsections on their table of content as significant compared to Dole's 16 subsections. It's pretty clear whose more notable. Just admit you were ignorant on the extent of Bob Dole's career. Being ignorant isn't bad it just means you were unaware. - CountingStars500 (talk) 9 December 2021 Dole didn't have a direct effect in that prosecution. Many thousands of people have some international notability, including a large number of diplomats, ambassadors etc. - that doesn't mean that they should be included on main year articles. We don't measure (international) notability by article length. If we did, we'd be saying that Kim Kardashian has a high level of international notability, when in fact she merely has international media coverage & fans in many countries. If she dies whilst still in the public eye, her death will receive a huge amount of media coverage. That doesn't mean she should be in the Deaths section of the main year article of the year in which she dies. Jim Michael (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Actually he did: https://exit.al/en/2021/12/07/kosovo-albania-honor-senator-bob-dole-for-contribution-to-kosovos-liberation/. His involvement within the ICMP was a factor. Also, my point wasn't to suggest that article length was a factor in notability rather such a short page is a clear sign of lack of notability. Athletes who are simply known for kicking a ball in a given year aren't notable. If someone's name shows up on their birth year list they should be listed on their death year list, in order for a consistency, for example if someone was born in 1948 and is listed in the 1948 births and dies in 2021 they should be listed, and vice versa if they don't show on their birth year leave them off on their death year. All I'm calling for is a consistent flow. - CountingStars500 (talk) 9 December 2021 A short article doesn't prove a lack of (international) notability. It's sometimes due to the person not being well-known in the Anglosphere & them having been out of the public eye for many years, so few WP editors have knowledge or interest in them. No-one is included for kicking a ball - substantial international notability is required & the sportspeople usually have important medals, world records, have scored international goals etc. Jim Michael (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Then why the inclusion of Horst Eckel? A minor athlete with no international notability. The inconsistencies on this list are strikingly obvious. Many sources have confirmed that Bob Dole was a central figure in the American delegation that helped Kosovo, which I cited. Other dignitaries and ambassadors are included in death lists. - CountingStars500 (talk) 9 December 2021 Eckel's international notability is clearly stated on his article - he was a member of the West German team who won the 1954 FIFA World Cup. Most ambassadors, diplomats etc. aren't included on main year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "He was a member of the West German team who won the 1954 FIFA World Cup." That's not that notable, it didn't affect the process of world-history as I said and you denied "Athletes who are simply known for kicking a ball in a given year aren't notable" and you responded with "No-one is included for kicking a ball" now you come with ""He was a member of the West German team who won the 1954 FIFA World Cup." EXACTLY! Not notable! Also, plenty of dignitaries and ambassadors have gotten on death lists. - CountingStars500 (talk) 9 December 2021 It's of substantial international notability - the FIFA World Cup is the most important tournament of the world's most popular sport. Winning it is far more than simply kicking a ball. Jim Michael (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Has FIFA altered the trajectory of World History? If Eckel is so notable use the German-language Wikipedia and expand Eckel's page. Bob Dole clearly did alter the world's history, he was swarmed by people in Kosovo because of his work (as noted by the sources I provided). But, be my guest expand Eckel's page. - CountingStars500 (talk) 9 December 2021 What do you think the inclusion bar should be for sportspeople on main year articles? Jim Michael (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Hey, it’s CountingStars500. I’m currently on my university campus so unable to reply via my account. But, I’d rather answer your question earlier rather than later. I think any athlete with a significant international reporting about them should be included. I’m not opposed to Eckel being excluded in and of itself, but I want international mentions about him in regards to his FIFA career. CountingStars500 (talk) 9 December 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.49.238 (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Eckel's article includes refs from Associated Press & Reuters. Jim Michael (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Yes, but I'm talking about multi-national publications such as in Canada, Mexico, China, Russia, India, any African countries, etc. Multiple countries covered Bob Dole and his impact on their countries. Did Horst Eckel have influence in any country besides Germany? - CountingStars500 (talk) 9 December 2021 Actually @CountingStars500, Jim Michael is correct. Horst Eckel DOES have international coverage in multiple countries. That being said Bob Dole has more international coverage and longer articles relating to his contributions in those respective countries. I think Bob Dole should be on the list too, but Jim makes a valid point that you are wrongly discrediting. - [[User: EmilyPhillipson (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC) International coverage doesn’t necessarily equate to international notability, as has been discussed on this Talk page throughout the last half year or so. Dole received international coverage because he happened to be a (failed) major party Presidential candidate from America, and American politicians - regardless of whether or not they were predominately domestic - are more likely to get this sort of coverage than their international counterparts purely because they come from the United States. Part of the reason why we came up with the inclusion criteria for political figures here was to substantially reduce bias in favour of American political figures (it was absolutely outrageous, for example, that John B. Anderson was included without any scrutiny for years in spite of the fact that he was a third party Presidential candidate with zero international significance - whereas any such equivalent from other countries would have been immediately questioned and removed). As for Eckel, I’ve said this before but I don’t think it’s appropriate to compare sports figures to politicians at all due to how inherently different the categories are. Issues with the inclusion of sports figures ought to be discussed on a separate thread, rather than being used in a false comparison to make a point in favour of Dole’s inclusion. Thescrubbythug (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC) @Thescrubbythug I wholeheartedly agree with most of what you said. Especially in regards to making sure the death list isn't American-centric, the world isn't the United States after all. Completely agree with you also in regards to John B. Anderson, he definitely shouldn't be included. My only disagreement is that the sources I saw explained the contributions Bob Dole himself made in those specific countries, something that John B. Anderson clearly lacked. But, I'm open to persuasion. EmilyPhillipson (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Well, it's already been explained by myself and Alsoriano why Dole's support of Kosovo is really not sufficient grounds for inclusion here, and that it would set a problematic precedent which could see minor figures like Eliot Engel included in the event of death. There is recognition that Dole was a key supporter and advocate for Kosovo on the American political scene, but to go so far as to claim that he was a central figure in the establishment and independence of Kosovo would be to greatly inflate his significance on the issue. Alsoriano put it best when she said "if being the head of a delegation and visiting the country means that he is a leading figure of this transition, it's an insult to those Kosovars who did make that struggle and to other people who were transcendental in the sovereignty processes of other countries". Thescrubbythug (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Yes, I have read through the thread and understand that specifically in regards to Kosovo inclusion isn't warranted. But, I searched up other countries that talk about his role in shaping the foreign policy of America during his time in the Senate, such as in China. All I'm saying is that suggesting he only dealt with domestic policy is wrong, he had an effect on foreign policy. EmilyPhillipson (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Well we just can't exclude only American politicians and have other non significant politicians on. For example, this guy here was listed on the death list in 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Barrot Let's get rid of him too to be fair. We have to be fair and balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:C822:74C5:424:1232 (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC) How important are European Commissioners? Jim Michael (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC) And here's a Polish politician of a smallish city poland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawe%C5%82_Adamowicz He was included on the death list for 2019. We have to be fair right ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:172:DB2D:875D:692E (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Adamowicz certainly shouldn't be included; he has no international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC) The people that seem to have taken over this page and imposed their own rules are, simply, wrong. Dole is obviously notable (I'm not using "internationally" because that's another made-up "rule"), and I'm the last person to push for more Americans on this page. I think this problem needs more eyes, possibly at a centralised RfC. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC) No-one's disputing that Dole is notable. The issue is whether or not he has enough international notability to be included on this article. Through consensus & practice over a period of years, substantial international notability has been established as the bar for inclusion on main year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC) And the "substantial internation notability" of Dündar Ali Osman, Gregory Peter XX Ghabroyan or Ivan Toplak is? Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Osman has none. Ghabroyan held a post in France. Toplak managed teams in a few countries & won an Olympic medal. I don't think any of them should be included. Jim Michael (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Black Kite, no one here has taken over of anything, much less imposed their criteria. On the contrary! Otherwise, what value do you give to the discussions on this Talk Page? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC) It’s really quite simple. Dole did not serve as head of government/state, nor did he serve as Secretary Of State. While he was known for his support and advocacy of Kosovo as well as recognition of the Armenian Genocide in the domestic American political scene, these were far from his main point of notability. Obituaries of Dole both domestic and international emphasise mainly the fact that he was an (unsuccessful) major party Presidential candidate, and to a lesser extent as Gerald Ford’s (unsuccessful) VP candidate and as a senior figure of the American Senate. Significant domestic posts, but we have 2021 in the United States for that. The fact of the matter is, if Bob Dole was from any other country and held the exact same domestic positions and had the exact same sort of record, hardly anyone would have attempted to include him on the main yearly article. This discussion would not have taken place at all, let alone go on as long as it has. Any points about other minor figures that has slipped under the radar and has been included (mainly in past yearly pages) ought to be dealt with separately. TheScrubby (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Bob Dole wasn't exclusively a domestic figure though. Multiple countries have pointed out his contributions to their countries, and I'm not referring to Kosovo but rather China, as Bob Dole did do foreign trips during his years as a politician, insisting that he never did affect foreign policy isn't correct. EmilyPhillipson (talk), 20:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC) We only rarely include political figures who weren’t head of government/state or Foreign Minister/Secretary of State, and we only do so for exceptional cases. Donald Rumsfeld is one such example, and that’s because of his key role in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. To include Dole on the basis of his record would set a problematic precedent that would greatly expand the number of predominately domestic politicians included. TheScrubby (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC) Just a bit of order around here. If we start debating about whether it's appropriate to include people who have been included in the "Deaths" section from this year, or from previous years, this section will be a nightmare. Please, if you want to do so, open a section, in the same way Deb did a lot of times, and discuss there. But not in this one, we are getting off topic. Besides, it doesn't make much sense to question the international notability of one person by questioning the notability of another person included. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC) But we have to be fair and balanced. As Jim points out, none of the people I listed would qualify under our new requirements. I personally don't think Bob Dole should be included, but we have to be fair among all countries and peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:172:DB2D:875D:692E (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC) These “new” requirements have existed around here since around April, in the wake of the discussions over Walter Mondale’s inclusion - which itself was an extremely borderline inclusion (and the discussion was more a calling out of the fact that until then US Vice Presidents were automatically included without debate and with a portrait, while other deputy heads of government/state from any other country are questioned and usually removed). They have served us well up to now; the only thing is, not everybody has the time and patience to dedicate themselves to cleaning up past yearly pages and removing minor figures in line with these standards. TheScrubby (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC) On Dündar Ali Osman, if we choose to retain him then it would stand to reason we would include the heads of other deposed royal families when they die; France alone has Bonapartist, Orléanist and Legitimist pretenders. It seems like it would convolute whatever year articles they’re included in. I support removing Osman PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC) They shouldn't be on main year articles. They're not real royalty & don't even have figurehead status. Jim Michael (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC) So... Bob Dole is excluded, but Michael Nesmith is included? GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC) I fail to see the comparison between a predominantly domestic politician and a musical figure. TheScrubby (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC) A better way to compare would be why Dole's (global) achievements in Kosovo and with Armenians were seen as minor, yet very minor claims on more domestic MTV and country rock are cited as achievements for Nesmith. It can seem jarring that work in other countries is seen as less global than work on a domestic tv station and in a music genre seen as purely domestic American in nature. That's all. A top rank national politician of a G20 nation, is generally known to non-Americans more than a specific American TV star and country musician, so this can cause confusion in non-Americans and other G20 countries citizens like me or GoodDay. This is how i understand this comparison atleast. GuzzyG (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC) Another way to see it would be as a G20 nation citizen Scrubby yourself, with a interest in politics, knows alot about Dole, despite presumably not being a fan, while knowledge of Nesmith in-depth would require specific interests; this is global notability, anyone with a interest in politics knows of Dole's career - globally. Noone knows of Nesmith unless you're into the Monkees indepth. This is the proper comparison. GuzzyG (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC) Way to make this a personalised comment, not acknowledging the other users opposing Dole’s inclusion. It’s an arbitrary, utterly false comparison - one as relevant as say, Dole and Lina Wertmüller or him and Robbie Shakespeare. Do you have some sort of personal kick in going after me specifically? This is the sort of thing which is why I called you out after you derailed my (entirely neutral) thread on Salinas. Can you not understand how toxic this is? TheScrubby (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC) I worded it wrong, i personalised it to put it in a easier way to understand; the ability to know of Dole and people like Eliot Engel comes from the global role of G20 politics and these countries global leaders. most people, including my dad and aunt in Australia who never finished high school and failed in everything; know of Dole through this globalness. Knowing that Nesmith's show on Nickelodeon that ran for one year made other executives realise the profit in music video television or that some modern general journalist cite him as a pioneer of country rock is ultra specific info that noone knows on a global level; it's just not common, ultra specific. You don't have to have a interest in Dole to know of him, there's just no way to know that of Nesmith without reading about him. I'm sorry if i came off wrong, as that is not my intention; i just tried to put it in a way that's easier to understand. You've often straight up ignored my basic questions; like where is the quotes from historians and specific music journalists that you said existed in this quote "But although you downplay the importance and significance of The Monkees, these are not views widely shared by music critics and historians" to constantly imply im not allowed to post here as im unwelcome or derailing the thread; even in that quote you single me out like i'm purposely trying to downplay importance - this is a way to constantly say im downplaying Nesmith but ignoring my question. As a encyclopedia; i don't think analysis of the sources or asking for them is a bad thing but common practice; or using comparison to understand vitality of a figure. GuzzyG (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC) I think it's safe to say, that Dole is more internationally known, then Nesmith. GoodDay (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Kim Yong-ju (Result: exclusion)

Does the uncle of Kim Jong-un have enough importance to merit inclusion on the main page? His status as a state leader is not a hundred percent clear; opinions welcome PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - Vice Premiers are not figures we would typically include on these lists, even if Yong-ju happened to be the brother of Kim Il-sung and happened to live to 101. While I'm also happy to wait a little bit to see any arguments that would merit his inclusion, to me it seems clear that his inclusion would go against our political figures standards. TheScrubby (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per TheScrubby. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose due to him not having any international notability. He was merely related to people who do, which doesn't count for anything here. Jim Michael (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Prioritising government figures (Result: status quo; page views deemed irrelevant as factor for inclusion)

Is it really necessary to do such thing? like how are they internationally relevant when they were only knew on their countries of origin, I am talking in any case of just having political figures on the death sections, but also specifically for the December section; we have Kåre Willoch (pageviewing 20 to 30 people) and Mustafa Ben Halim (pageviewing stays on 200), two politicians that are not internationally notable, nor do people know who they are, why did they have to be prioritized instead of figures such as Carmen Salinas (1000 pageviwing) or Anne Rice (700-900 pageviewing) who have international recognition and are known for their jobs, the first as an actress and the second as a writer. It certainly makes no sense just to add politicians no one knows who they were or what they do.-TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

We don't take pageviews into account, nor should we. They indicate popularity, not notability. Jim Michael (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

We add heads of state and government, even those in an acting capacity, due to long-standing criteria; no matter how well-known they are by common people, they lead their countries and that gives them the relevance to be included on the main page. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, heads of state/gov are automatically internationally notable enough for inclusion. They represent their countries when dealing with other countries. Jim Michael (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding which photos to put of whom, I think it's important to keep in mind that not for being a head of government/state one already has a guaranteed place in the photos, as there are some who "go a little unnoticed in history". And I'm afraid that this is the case of Willoch. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, as already expressed by everyone else on this thread, heads of government (though not so much those heads of state whose roles are purely ceremonial) are a firm exception and that we generally prioritise them, especially over pop culture figures (and in any case we do not and never have include people on this list or when it comes to image on the basis of page views). However, for the sake of variety we try to save at least one image allocation for somebody else - as you can see with November (where we have Stephen Sondheim for the third image) and December (Fernández - though we’ll also see what happens once there’s space for a fourth image). TheScrubby (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Photos (Result: status quo)

There are 3 photos for the October section of Deaths, 2 of which are politicians. The same is true of November. For December there are 2, both of which are politicians. Should our photos instead represent more fields? Jim Michael (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they should. Replace Ben Halim with Vicente Fernández and replace Roh Tae-woo (We list Chun in November) with Abdul Qadeer Khan. The rest are ok. GuzzyG (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

In October I remain neutral, but if someone is to be replaced I agree that it should be Roh and maybe by Jorge Medina or whoever you see best. In November I am not complaining, both politicians with image are very important so I would leave it as it is. In December I agree that one of the two politicians should be replaced by Fernández or Rice. Or maybe both because the ones pictured are not PMs that have been particularly relevant. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Roh’s image should be retained for October as he has substantial notability as South Korea’s transitional leader between a military dictatorship and a democracy - his predecessor’s image being included in November shouldn’t really be a factor in this case. Would have zero objections with prioritising Fernández for the third December image. TheScrubby (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Two leaders who ruled back-to-back being listed almost back-to-back does not result in diversity, which should be the point of this list. Khan giving Pakistan nuclear status (and rumoured to have sold secrets); has done more for global politics than Roh. Roh's notability is tied to his country. Khan's contributions to both his country and global structure as a result of another nuclear power is more important than being one countries transitional leader. GuzzyG (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Opposition leaders/presidential candidates from G20 countries (Result: excluded, with case-by-case exceptions)

The discussions to do with Bob Dole, and the fact that he was not being included as per the current political figures criteria has proved controversial for some users here. @GuzzyG: has made the point several times that Opposition Leaders/Presidential candidates (major party) from G20 nations ought to be included even if they failed to win an election. At the very least, this proposal merits discussion. Should the criteria be changed so that G20 Opposition Leaders/Presidential candidates be included; should Opposition Leaders/Presidential candidates from all countries in general be included; or should we maintain the status quo on this? IMO, if consensus changes in favour of including the aforementioned G20 figures, I wouldn’t be too opposed, particularly since it wouldn’t necessarily constitute Americentrism as it wouldn’t prioritise just Americans. Though I don’t think they at all should have their images prioritised. TheScrubby (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I honestly don't see it. Opposition leaders and presidential candidates end up being strictly domestic figures and hardly have popularity and relevance beyond the borders of their respective countries. Perhaps the exception would be Hillary Clinton, but especially because of who her rival was and that she was the first woman from a major party to become a candidate. And also, in short, because it's the United States, everything is magnified. Otherwise, I do not see it as necessary. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

In Clinton’s case her international significance is more the fact that she served as Secretary of State, and her actions in that role (which sets her well apart from other examples such as Dole). Her being the first woman candidate for a major party in America has zero international significance. But overall she would be included here in any case, even if she had not been a Presidential candidate in 2016. But yeah, I lean towards agreeing with you overall. TheScrubby (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Michael Foot was included when he died. So was Jack Layton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:E9A5:49E8:9E68:7986 (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State had a substantial effect on world affairs, which grants her a place in the Deaths section of the main year article of the year she dies. Being an opposition leader or unsuccessful candidate for a political position doesn't indicate international notability. Foot & Layton were domestic figures who shouldn't be included. Jim Michael (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m opposed to the inclusion of an opposition leader unless they have rendered unquestionably significant service and/or have had some kind of profound effect on world affairs; in other words, very nearly no opposition figure could qualify; you can’t affect political affairs when outside the governing party. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The statement "you can’t affect political affairs when outside the governing party" isn't true. Many opposition leaders have indeed affected the policies of a country. Especially in multi-party systems under minority situations (the governing party has only a plurality of seats) therefore opposition leaders have more clout. I don't understand your assumption that you need to be part of the governing party to affect policy that's not true. Emily Phillipson (talk) 2:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyPhillipson (talk • contribs)

True, but politicians of parties other than the governing one rarely have significant international effects, which is why they should usually be excluded from main year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Support this proposal. It would be illogical to list every Oympics gold medal winner as the top rank of global notability; but not leading politicians of members of G20 esque political groups. As shown by stuff like MIKTA (ignoring every larger meeting); regularly minor politicians still participate globally. Surely of more importance than some sport competitions, especially if ones like the Commonwealth games get looked on as worthy enough. Our standards for politicians are already weak; where say the country with the lowest pageviews out of every country (not including Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic) Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; can have two "automatic" placements with the governor general Susan Dougan or James Fitz-Allen Mitchell (three if you count the Queen); but the two countries commonly seen as the two superpowers United States and China do not have two "automatic" placements, with even some vice presidents seen as unworthy. It's ludicrous in a way.... this helps. Foreign ministers, vice presidents, opposition leaders (party leaders of other main parties) and finance ministers of G20 countries directly participate regularly in global politics. If small countries get two automatically because of Britains colonial system (or worse if we include Switzerland or San Marino and their structures where multiple people lead at once), but we can't get more than just the main leaders of actually globally important countries, it would make this list odd compared to any other encyclopedic system and not reflective in anyway of important politicians. GuzzyG (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Pageviews (Result: irrelevant as factor for inclusion)

Do we have consensus that the number of views that articles receive is irrelevant in regards to whether or not to include an event or person in year articles, as well as whether or not to include a photo? I never thought anyone would consider it, but it's been suggested on here recently. Jim Michael (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

In my view, absolutely. It’s about as relevant as the number of language articles for a subject, which is to say next to none. In no way should it be considered a major factor in any inclusion criteria for the yearly pages. TheScrubby (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The number of language articles a WP bio had used to be part of the criteria for inclusion for Deaths in main recent year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That's right, and hopefully it's one that won't be used again. Unless of course we decided that Corbin Bleu is a household name and one of the world's most notable and significant people. TheScrubby (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

To be fair to Corbin, his album charted higher than Michael Nesmith's solo work and he gets more international attention [2], so if we list Nesmith for his solo work, i think Bleu deserves attention. GuzzyG (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Pageviews can be helpful in one way; to show that figures like Michael Nesmith hold no international relevance. [3]; with barely any views other than English. Other than showing global weakness in pop culture figures who should have a advantage in views, it's not really relevant as a whole. GuzzyG (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Anne Rice (Result: borderline inclusion)

Is her international notability due to her winning the Bram Stoker Award for Lifetime Achievement? Is that sufficient? Jim Michael (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The Vampire Chronicles I think is the main driving force behind her inclusion, and that is insufficient. I support her removal. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Depends on if figures like Stephenie Meyer would be listed. Tom Clancy is listed on his year, so i don't see why Rice shouldn't. GuzzyG (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with GuzzyG. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Rice, Meyer & Clancy have similarly fairly small amounts of international notability, so I can see the reasoning for including all 3 or none of them. Jim Michael (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. She's sold >100 milion books worldwide. They weren't all sold in the USA, you know. Translated into >20 languages. Books spawned movies that were shon globably (obviously). If Rice isn't notable, no author is. Ditto Clancy. This is getting utterly stupid now. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Would you support Danielle Steel? She's sold more than Rice and translated more, so what's the difference? When do we draw the line? This guy has claimed sales of 500 million, i don't think it would be "stupid" to question his spot. For such a big seller, she just scraps by on some international attention. [4]. She gets less searchs than Steel or a long dead Nobel winner here; [5]. I support Rice being on here; but it's not stupid to question and analyse these kind of barely make it American figures, that wouldn't qualify from any other country. (they're never as big as people tend to think!). It'd be more stupid to not question anything and if a 100 million seller can't translate that into shown interest - than i wouldn't call that successful at all. GuzzyG (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "interest", though? Her work has been read and analysed all over the world. Clancy's novels have been best-sellers in multiple countries and spawned a massive global film franchise as well. Anyway, if we're going down the google trends route, here's Rice vs the last three other (non-political) deaths that have been added to this article. And I added Clancy as well, which should put that one to bed. [6] Black Kite (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If she's sold 100 million works worldwide, but gets barely any international interest or people searching for her, she is not successful in translating that interests from her books to looking her up online at the bare minimum. "analysed" isn't a measure that can be tracked easy and via JSTOR - she gets less results (and nearly all minor) [7] than bell hooks [8], who we don't list, so this isn't probably a path where Anne will win. Her films had Tom Cruise, a global celeb, ofcourse they'd be boosted, but she doesn't get credit for having the biggest star in the world have a lead role in films based on her work. The rest isn't worth it; cause to use google trends you have to not use search terms but actually click the persons link, doing it properly here [9]; Fernández beats both Clancy and Rice (in the US too, pretty dominantly in fact!) - Fourque and Santana are minor, but there's a known Spanish bias on this list. I'd say if two people big in American pop culture, (with global films and 100 million sales) can't beat out a singer from another country in the US - it really does put the matter to bed, doesn't it? GuzzyG (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that Fernandez isn't internationally notable - he is. But you're missing the point - it doesn't matter who gets the most searches in a particular country, it matters how they are distributed internationally, because we're talking about international notability. Now look at the world maps for each of those people ... Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way, [10] this is interesting (adding "Interview with the Vampire" to the search). Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Clancy's name being searched more internationally in that example means nothing; because Tom Clancy's as a popular video game franchise's exists. (which makes it even worse that he doesn't top a truly important figure like Fernández in the US).

Google trends results don't work properly when you don't click the option and just leave the search as "Search term"; he has the most searchs with it [11]. The book brings in no results; but when you add the film aswell - [12] it corresponds almost exactly to where Anne beats Fernández; which only proves the film via Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt is what's important, which does not count towards her. (or any big film based on a book would make it). A true global author like Stephen King should've been the comparison [13] who beats the film internationally (and just beats Fernández in total searchs, proving this is what the standard should be for this list and who is truly a global writer). GuzzyG (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Retain Rice as per GuzzyG and Alsoriano, albeit a borderline case. Not sure if I would prioritise her image though. I also note (after looking though edit summaries on the main page) that there is no inclusion criteria for authors. TheScrubby (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

GuzzyG, can you explain to me what you mean when you say "Spanish bias"? For being included Verónica Forqué? Uhm... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't really mind the inclusion of Forqué, as her international notability may be questioned. But Santana? Real? Have you read his wikibio? The fact that he's a Wimbeldon winner, two French Open and even an Olympic winner doesn't help you? Then I don't understand your criteria to evaluate the sportspeople that should be included in these lists. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Bias because of the inclusion of incredibly minor figures like Joan Margarit, José Manuel Caballero Bonald, Francisco Brines, Francesc Arnau, Pilar Bardem, Mario Camus, Manuel Santana and Verónica Forqué that seemingly get by without any examination or removal. Case in point minor film figures like Camus, Bardem and Forqué - in a minor film industry get listed and yet Buddhadeb Dasgupta who won two best director awards in one of the biggest film industries (Indian cinema) gets ignored. It's technically Euro bias cause of the Schengen area providing a false sense of global importance, but Spain stands out the most as having alot of minor figures listed, comparable to others not listed.

Yes, i have read his bio - "amateur" world no 1 is of 0 relevance. A Olympics demonstration event is a reach to count as an official Olympics event and other figures who won that same event like Vicente Zarazúa hardly inspire confidence in their global notability. Sucks for the basque pelota people who won in another demonstration event who don't even have articles because these events are not important (and way too regional to qualify anyway). There's a long history of Demonstration sport's and none of the winners are notable. Mediterranean Games is way too regional by definition... He won every major of his pre-Open era; which means by definition his achievements are restricted. How is that of global importance if some of the athletes were restricted from competing? Lee Elder broke the colour barrier in one of the majors of his sport (so he was being held back and broke a barrier); he didn't get listed, so Santana playing to a restricted base (not breaking one) in his doesn't get any credit from me. It hardly inspires confidence in me either that he didn't win any majors post-Open era other than the demonstration event. (Professionals in tennis could only compete in the Olympics starting in 1988 [14], so he had to revert back to restricted player bases to win..... hardly of major importance). If we don't list barrier breakers - we don't list people who played in barriers - this is my sports rule anyway. GuzzyG (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Astroworld Festival crowd crush (Result: exclusion)

I think the Astroworld Festival crowd crush should be included. The event has had significant coverage in multiple sources in multiple countries. Obviously it's getting wide coverage in the US. A very brief search shows that the BBC have run it as headline news (Alexa has mentioned it to me 2 days in a row!) and written in-depth articles about the event, RT have given it significant coverage from their own correspondents, Al Jazeera have seen fit to editorialise it. It's covered by response-pieces and editorials in reliable publications on every continent (well beyond the standard copy/paste of AFP/Reuters in pretty much every single publication that does so.)

Obviously the decision to include something on here is highly subjective, as is the decision to include it on ITN but I think it fits. JeffUK (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It should be excluded because it was a domestic event. Inclusion on ITN has nothing to do with whether or not events should be on here. ITN has different criteria that don't require international notability. International media coverage doesn't indicate international notability. If it did, the murder of Sarah Everard, the killing of Gabby Petito & the release of Squid Game would have to be included in the Events section due them being extremely important international events simply because they received a great deal of international media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"International media coverage doesn't indicate international notability." So what does indicate international notability? This event is notable, and it has had significant international coverage, what more needs to happen for it to gain your 'international notability' seal of approval? The slippery slope argument is not convincing; besides, Squid Game is an international phenomenon. I don't have hold any great fear about it being included in the article. JeffUK (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It has to significantly affect multiple countries to fulfil the criteria. This is longstanding criteria, not merely my idea or perception.

Squid Game isn't international, but its popularity & its media coverage are. Were it to be added, many other film, TV & pop culture-related things will be. Jim Michael (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"It has to significantly affect multiple countries to fulfil the criteria. " That's clearly not true for most things on the list. Taking a sample of the first 10 events

"A British judge blocks the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States, while Mexico offers him political asylum"- Does not significantly affect multiple countries. "Supporters of President Donald Trump attack the United States Capitol, d..." Did not affect multiple countries. " In Lyon, France, the first transplant of both arms and shoulders is performed on an Icelandic patient at the Édouard Herriot Hospital" Did not affect any countries. " Canada becomes the first country to designate the Proud Boys as a terrorist organisation." Does not affect multiple countries. Clearly the inclusion criteria on this list are highly subjective, it's a curated list of things that we deem important enough to merit inclusion in 'key things that happened in 2021,' so discussion is key. Saying "It's a longstanding criteria" is not discussion. JeffUK (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a longstanding criteria that's been repeatedly confirmed by consensus. The Assange situation has significantly affected international relations for years, but I'm not sure whether this development in the case is important enough to include. I've already said that the 2021 United States Capitol attack was domestic & shouldn't be included, but consensus went against me in regard to that. The transplant has an international angle, as well as it being a world first. The designation of an organisation from one country as terrorist by another country's gov is international, allowing donations to be seized & people prosecuted for belonging to or supporting it, but such designations aren't usually included in year articles & don't think this one should be. Jim Michael (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do think we made the right call in including the Capitol riots. Yes, it was primarily a domestic event, but it was one that was shocking and (as far as I know) unprecedented - an attempt at a coup within one of the world's largest democracies. There's even an entire standalone article about the international reactions to the events of 6 January. As for Astroworld, I'm neutral and would be happy to go either way - though I should also point out that when 11 people died and 26 others were injured at a concert by The Who, it was included on the 1979 page. Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Being rare doesn't increase notability. Coups happen every year & the Capitol attack was never close to being successful, even if you classify it as a self-coup or attempted coup. We usually include successful coups but not attempts. Its huge-scale coverage in the media & on WP is due to millions of people being very interested in it, along with where it happened & it having been filmed by many. Jim Michael (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd just point out that the crowd crush in Israel in April 2021 is currently listed on this page, and that's not an international event either; whilst I appreciate there were more casualties in that one, I don't see any technical difference between that and this. Black Kite (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

None of the three crushes mentioned should be included. However, 1979 isn't a recent year; the guidelines are a bit different for older years. I removed the Meron crush, but was repeatedly reverted. Jim Michael (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd never read recent year before, thanks for the link. The guidance there is that "One way to demonstrate the required notability is that the event received independent news reporting from three continents on the event." which is the standard I intuitively tried to prove by showing reporting from the North America, Europe and Asia. It's been editorialised (i.e. original, independent reporting) in South Africa and Australia too. JeffUK (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

After objections to some of its criteria, RY was depreciated to an essay. However, it explains why many older year articles include events of less importance that more recent years tend not to include. Jim Michael (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Jack Layton (Result: exclusion from relevant main year pages)

Layton's inclusion has been raised a few times in recent discussions on here, so on Talk:2011 I've asked whether or not he's internationally notable enough to be on 2011. Jim Michael (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I've posted my reasonings on Talk:2011. It's important to know how the structure of the Canadian governmental system works before you discredit someone as being "not notable". Neither Paul Martin or Stephen Harper could pass anything without the input of Jack Layton. Stephen Harper no longer needed the backing of Layton after the Canadian federal election, 2011 which resulted in a Conservative majority government, but anything prior to that Layton held the decision. - CountingStars500 (talk)

I'm not trying to discredit Layton; no-one doubts that he's notable. The issue is whether or not he's internationally notable enough to be on the main year articles of his birth & death years. The vast majority of the 99.5% of the world's population who live outside Canada don't know much about its government & only its PM is well-known internationally. His WP article should better represent his international influence. I only became aware of his existence when I heard that he'd died. I won't remove him from 1950 or 2011. Jim Michael (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Johnny Isakson (Result: exclusion)

Turns out that at least two of the people making the same argument were in reality just a single person - and a third user also completely derailed the discussion.

Is Johnny Isakson notable enough? EmilyPhillipson (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC) Oh, absolutely not. 2021 in the United States is where domestic politicians like him go. TheScrubby (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC) I agree. For once we found common ground. - CountingStars500 (talk) 5:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC) No. Only American politicians that should be listed are Presidents, Vice Presidents, select First Ladies like Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis or Michelle Obama, presidential candidates like Bob Dole and John McCain (as these are generally globally documented people) and United States Secretary of the Treasury and United States Secretary of State as these two roles play a very important role in global politics and diplomacy etc, especially as American foreign policy and economy are important on a global stage. The rest are domestic and minor with 0 chance of making it. It'd also set a bad precedent with figures like Li Qiang and Stephen Greenhalgh, Baron Greenhalgh having to be added from other important countries. GuzzyG (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC) While in practice most (modern, at the very least) VPs will end up being included, there is zero consensus that all should be included (as per the inclusion criteria) just because they happen to have been VP. Of all the VPs since Mondale modernised the role, I think all except Dan Quayle and Mike Pence merit inclusion for various different reasons (Bush Sr and Biden for obvious reasons, Gore as a Nobel recipient, and Cheney for his role in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan). Likewise, there is zero consensus in favour of including failed Presidential candidates or Treasury Secretaries (First Ladies I imagine most would be excluded, with case by case exceptions such as Kennedy and Clinton). The majority of Secretaries of State will be, and are, included - as can be seen by the inclusion of Shultz and Powell this year. Fully agree w. the last points regarding how it’ll set a bad precedent. TheScrubby (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC) If small island countries get three representatives in the monarch, the local monarch representative (governor general) and the PM and most European countries get both a president and PM listed, i don't see how a American VP isn't given automatic status... Do you really think Mike Pence had less of a effect than Frederick Ballantyne or Otar Patsatsia? Is this really a accurate representation of the landscape of global politics to give Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Tuvalu three automatic placements but only one for the United States or China, because their political structure lies in the main power being in a single person? Is Pence or Li Keqiang really less vital globally than a Tuvaluan governor general? Finance ministers and equivalents are a fundamental aspect of G20; arguably one of the most definitive things of global importance. This list gives automatic favour to gold medal Olympic winners (even in restricted demonstration amateur sports); but not people who are a fundamental part of the biggest global meeting of politicians to discuss the world economy, really? Sports are more of a niche thing than world economic leaders and to favour athletes makes no sense. We can't say there's a bias to politicians and than include 3 for every small country while none for the ones that are widely seen as states of global influence and importance... GuzzyG (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC) We include heads of government and state of every country regardless of its status, size and influence - and it’s not like these small countries get any regular representation on these lists as it is, so I really don’t see what there is to complain about. Li Keqiang will be included in the event of death as head of government (which is distinct from Pence’s role), so I don’t see why he’s been brought up. As I said, most modern American VPs will end up being included anyway, and in practice more American politicians are included than from most other countries - without the need of automatic placements. I, and many others here, are deadset against including American VPs purely because they held the title when the same standards don’t apply to other deputy heads of government/state - that would be Americentrism. To include Dan Quayle or Mike Pence when they were minor VPs in the grand scheme of things (what’s Quayle’s main point of international notability and significance? “Potatoe”? Comparing himself to JFK in a debate? Was he really an internationally consequential figure like most of the other modern VPs and does he really deserve automatic placement without question?) would be unacceptable - that is, unless somebody put up a convincing argument in their favour of their significance, as was seen with Mondale (who himself was a borderline inclusion - but is still more notable than Quayle or Pence. Or Bob Dole or John McCain, for that matter). TheScrubby (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC) I'm interested in more in the rational for Governor Generals and how people like Michael Ogio are globally important. What roles did he play in global history? How are Governor Generals not just local representatives of the Head of State? I don't care for Quayle being listed or him but i definitely think the Governor Generals should be scrapped and if they were than there would be no need for American VP's. They're not important and are more country specific than the American VP's are in the US. GuzzyG (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC) This disregards the fact that in practice, G-Gs are the de facto heads of state of these countries, and that the monarch is more or less irrelevant and more or less completely keeps out of the country’s affairs - the idea that they are no more than local representatives of the monarch is more or less outdated. That much was made pretty clear for example, when the Queen refused to get involved in the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, and chose to stay out of the fray as the Governor-General of the day chose to dismiss the Prime Minister from office. As the de facto head of state, the G-G must be retained on these lists, and I don’t think consensus will change on this issue. TheScrubby (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC) One person going rogue, not informing the queen - [15], is not indicative of the roles of the job generally, as this article says "The roles of the Queen and governor-general are largely symbolic in Australia." and this quote "But this "reserve power" to remove an elected prime minister has been debated ever since by legal experts. " implies that this rogue example can't be indicative of GG's generally. It is a role specific to the country, by definition not global, Dick Cheney's Iraq war role and influence doesn't count for other VP's in your eyes, so Kerr is not as reflective of other GG's, there's a reason he's the only example that can be cited here and why the people i ask about can be ignored, because they do nothing mega important generally. There may be some outliers like Kerr that may fit, following your VP model, but we can't decide to give these people a pass because a monarch can't be everywhere at once, giving them de facto head of state status, by law they are not the sole HOS, so we should not treat them as such. "The functions of the governor-general include appointing ministers, judges, and ambassadors; giving royal assent to legislation passed by parliament; issuing writs for election; and bestowing Australian honours" implies anything but global notability. Assigning a one fits all rule is just weird anyway, it should be by country. The political structure of San Marino and Switzerland show this, where we would list every captains regent of San Marino or member of the Federal Council (Switzerland), no problem, but expect Dan Quayle or Mike Pence to be spam. Either way, GG's need to be debated if VP's are not automatic and we need more general examples of global G-G influence beyond Kerr to prove that it's common, the head of state is always the monarch by nature of that role, we can't decide to give blanket exceptions and deciding theres two heads of state. Find a role that David Hurley has played internationally like Kamala Harris here [16], everything here [17] is extremely domestic, extremely minor. (only important stuff is connected to his time in the military). GuzzyG (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC) None of this changes the fact that the G-G position is de facto and in practice considered a head of state (something which cannot remotely be said for VP - and the citing of Harris going on a standard foreign trip is a poor one that means nothing) - to use Australia as an example again, the official website for the Governor-General says outright that "In practice, they are Australia’s Head of State and have a range of constitutional and ceremonial duties"[18]. Kerr's actions were certainly controversial (and in my personal view, an absolute disgrace) and an outlier, but the fact remains that the G-G still retains the power to dismiss a democratically elected PM - and that's not even getting into the G-G having the power to reject a PM's demand to call an early election. To argue against the inclusion of G-Gs on the grounds that their duties as ceremonial figureheads "implies anything but global notability" would also call into question those heads of state whose roles are also purely ceremonial - i.e. heads of state from countries where the political system is not presidential or semi-presidential. I don't really have the time to get into a protracted debate on this and I've said what I've had to say with my two cents on the issue, but you're welcome to start a standalone thread regarding which head of states (de facto or otherwise) ought to be included. It'd certainly be good as well to hear what others have to say on this issue, be it here or on this potential thread. TheScrubby (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC) "Harris is the top White House official at a large gathering of world leaders." from my link - is the key thing here and so is "Vice presidents traditionally use these kinds of trips to firm up diplomatic relationships"; this means VP's are generally a direct participant in global politics and sometimes alone represents their state on Foreign trips; this is by definition global importance as having a role in global political standing - the peak height of "globalness". It's ludicrous to suggest that Olympic medal winners are suddenly globally important out of whatever niche sport they're in; because most countries have competitors (like say, beauty pageants) but not direct global participants in global politics, the fact that it's standard as you say that these trips happen - the onus is than on you for saying why standard participants in global politics are not globally important; comparative at the very least to Olympic medal winners in Modern pentathlon or amateur only tennis tournament winners; or in comparison to minor GG figures, who only receive visitors as part of their ceremonial role. No ceremonial position is valid than by the very nature of the word "ceremonial". "The Governor-General of Australia is Her Majesty The Queen’s representative" is the bit directly before that though; they are completely second rank to another person. On that same page; "The Governor-General has specific constitutional and statutory powers. The Governor-General acts on the advice of Ministers who are responsible to Parliament" - hardly of any individual importance; even country specific politicians like Mitch McConnell have more individual, direct power on their countries politics than the G-G position. It's useless and is bias in favour of the British colonial system of governance, no other country gets this benefit of having a automatic add for a useless position. It completely depends on others to exist. It's a secondary postion and no secondary position to another more central figure is "globally" important by definition. It gets even worse when it comes to dependent territories. Rena Lalgie would qualify by nature of having a similar G-G role (in a British colony) or Kerisiano Kalolo for PM; but other similar circumstances like Pedro Pierluisi for Puerto Rico or Lou Leon Guerrero for Guam would not qualify, because the structure of their political system and government is different to a British system. That means noone from these US dependent territories like PR or Guam would qualify. A blanket set of notability requirements that compares every system amongst one another does not work and as is obvious here directly favours ex British states and territories and European structure. It's absurd to say ceremonial Euro politicians or G-G monarch representatives restricted largely to their own countries are singular important global figures; but an American vice president performing "standard" foreign trips as the sole representative of their government sometimes is not global, only important in the US. Ludicrous. GuzzyG (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC) No, what would be ludicrous would be to automatically include VPs from one country without question or debate over any other deputy heads of government/state or Governor-Generals (which, whether you like the legacy of British colonialism on the political systems of numerous countries around the world or not, does not make it any less valid and does not change the fact that G-Gs are de facto considered a head of state and functions as such) - it would be a blatant act of Americentrism. Being a representative of the President while on a standard foreign visit and going on their behalf does not equate in any way international notability or significance (hell, the article you sent r.e. Harris even outright notes her lack of experience on foreign policy), Quayle and Pence are historically minor figures outside America (the jury’s still out on Harris, as she’s still a relatively new incumbent), and what you’re arguing for would set a horrible precedent where people would claim that minor, predominately domestic politicians should be included on these yearly lists because they happened to go on foreign visits for whatever reason. It’s as Alsoriano put it in the Dole thread r.e. who we take in with regards to their international significance. I’m not going to respond to the false comparison and “whataboutism” of Olympic gold medalists beyond once again suggesting to open a thread regarding the inclusion of individual Olympic gold medalists if you think their inclusion is problematic. If you have an issue with the inclusion of Governor-Generals because they act as ceremonial (de facto) heads of state (never mind that the monarchy today is more or less totally irrelevant to these countries’ political processes, and that the G-G has far greater significance to these countries than the Queen), then you would also have to call into question all heads of state whose roles are also purely ceremonial, such as the Presidents of Germany and Israel. Which is of course (in my view) an absolutely ridiculous thing to contest. It is also ridiculous to compare the Governor-Generals of independent states within the Commonwealth to Puerto Rico and Guam, neither of which are independent, and both of which are under US control and jurisdiction (what would be next, Norfolk Island?). Now that’s my final word on this matter, and I’m not going to continue on this; I’ve given my two cents and made entirely clear what my views are on this. If anybody else would like to carry on this debate, they’re more than welcome to. For me, I’m going to leave it at that. TheScrubby (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC) The American political structure and the role of vice president is different to standard deputies and this one fits all example that treats every countries political system the same is exactly my point (it being pointless). There's clearly a difference in the importance of someone like Kamala Harris and Doug Anthony in global politics (or say with "historically minor figures outside Grenada" like Carlyle Glean); can't say "Being a representative of the President while on a standard foreign visit and going on their behalf does not equate in any way international notability or significance" when this is the exact role of the Governor-General as representative of the monarch. "would set a horrible precedent where people would claim that minor, predominately domestic politicians should be included on these yearly lists because they happened to go on foreign visits for whatever reason" This is already standard here with Andrew Peacock who is being listed as a minor figure for his PNG role; which is the by product of his role as minor/domestic Minister for External Territories (Australia); so i don't see how adding a specific exception for American VP's would affect minor politicians elsewhere; because most minor politicians do not participate to the extant that VP's do in international forums of diplomacy); the peak of global importance - and this is what's meant with the comparisons to the olympics; which is seen as automatically of global importance here because many different countries compete over different sports (some are more regional). Gold medal for swimming or sprinting yes; modern pentathlon - no; hardly global. I have a problem with these approaches that don't have nuance; every domestic deputy isn't comparable to Vice Presidents - i reject this as a example of American centrism; because this is just reflective of the American political system. It's not San Marino centric to list every Captains Regent who are co-head of state for 6 months each, it's not Switzerland centric to list all 7 Federal Council (Switzerland) members. This rule would only affect Quayle and Pence. That's not a example of American centric; any more than Michael Nesmith being listed over Sanja Ilić is. This list has more of a Euro-Centric problem than American, by any measure. "have to call into question all heads of state whose roles are also purely ceremonial, such as the Presidents of Germany and Israel" is more equivalent with monarchs than to governor generals. The ceremonial head of state of these places is the queen and this is the equivalent to these presidents. I'm more than happy to list the queen or other similar cases, clearly. I linked a politician from Bermuda and Tokelau; which are not independent territories; i compared them with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and Guam who are very similar places. Don't misrepresent my points; "It is also ridiculous to compare the Governor-Generals of independent states within the Commonwealth to Puerto Rico and Guam". Do you think Bermuda or Tokelau are "independent state"s? This is either a misrepresentation of my point or you don't know understand the political structures of most of these places. Hardly inspires confidence in a "one fits all" rule then..GuzzyG (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Why would Michael Foot or Jack Layton be included then ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:B18F:EF95:8D3F:1771 (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC) Quite simply because not everybody has the time and dedication to go through every yearly page and clean them up. Which is also why blatantly minor figures such as John B. Anderson were included for years - and was even attempted to be used as a precedent in the Mondale discussions - which was absolutely outrageous and a key reason for how and why we came up with the current political figures criteria. TheScrubby (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC) Foot & Layton shouldn't be included. A few people here - including me - have clearly stated that. Jim Michael (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC) You're clearly not Canadian but Jack Layton did have major international clout in regards to foreign policy between 2004 and 2011, specifically during the minority Liberal and Conservative years. - CountingStars500 (talk) If he had a major effect on Canada's international policies, that should be included in his article. Jim Michael (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Good thing it's already mentioned on his Wikipedia article Section 4, subjection 4 (4.4)Titled: Conservative minority government. He met with Hamid Karzai in regards to Afghan policy. You didn't read his article did you? - CountingStars500 (talk) Do you really believe that meeting with a president of a country means international notability? Do you really think so? Do you know how many foreign people meet with world leaders? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC) It's actually quite rare to meet with world leaders. Also, stop contradicting yourself as you yourself (and others) use meeting world leaders as a reason to keep others on the list because of notability. Try some consistency it would be a nice change. - CountingStars500 (talk) I've noticed that too. For example ScrubbyThug as insisted that Andrew Peacock should be included just because he met with world leaders, in which Alsoriano agreed with the reasoning. But, when the same reason is used for someone else Alsoriano completely reverses that stance. Interesting? Also, Most people haven't met world leaders you have to be a fellow world leader to get a meeting usually under diplomatic settings. Not to mention that Layton met with Karzai specifically in regards to policy discussions. - _-_EmilyPhillipson (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC) …no, Andrew Peacock was included above all for his role in the independence of Papua New Guinea, of which on the Australian side, he was the most important figure alongside Gough Whitlam and Bill Morrison. He had been the minister directly responsible for PNG in the early 1970s, and he was the key figure in changing government policy in favour of PNG independence, and towards self-government - something that is a key point in virtually any obituary you would find on him, and which is why he was awarded[19] the PNG’s Order of Logohu. And putting aside all that he was also one of Australia’s longest serving and most prominent Foreign Ministers - a role which in general we give more leeway to when it comes to inclusions her, as per the inclusion criteria. TheScrubby (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC) @ScrubbyThug You have a bad habit of making on the surface great points but inconsistently applying them. You claim that Peacock is included based of awards relating to his work in Papua New Guinea but refuse to add Bob Dole even though he meets similar standards to Peacock. - CountingStars500 (talk) I wasn’t citing the award necessarily as a key point in favour of inclusion, it was more used as a point to back up what I was saying about how Peacock is recognised, including in PNG, as a key figure in the lead up to independence, and as the key minister directly responsible for changing the government’s policy in favour of independence and away from colonial paternalism, and as the minister directly responsible for helping bring in self-government. Dole was a key supporter of Kosovo and is recognised as such, but his support for Kosovo was not direct in any way like Peacock’s with the PNG. Publicly backing Kosovo and visiting the country on a goodwill trip is incomparable to being say, the person directly responsible for helping bring about the change. It’s ultimately not comparable, however similar it may seem on the surface. I’ll also just add that all I intended with my initial response was to clarify and correct EmilyPhillipson after my name was invoked in relation to Andrew Peacock’s inclusion - not to get hounded (and this isn’t referring to yourself or Emily BTW) and bogged down in another lengthy debate and draw attention away from the main one which now centres on Jack Layton (which itself has come a fair way from the original discussion on this thread, which was to do with Johnny Isakson and by extension which US politicians ought to be included), particularly one which almost certainly would have been a rehash of debates already had and views already clearly expressed (on Peacock and Dole respectively). TheScrubby (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC) Bob Dole won one of Albania's top awards National Flag Decoration; for his role in the independence of Kosovo. Does this not count? Albania is a more important country to history, why does it's awards not matter? this guy won this award from PNG, would he fit on this list? Do you wanna make it a rule to add people who receive foreign awards, if not why bring this up as a point? How is Dole's award for helping independence different? Should Bill Morrison (politician) have a place, if not why pick and choose? Do domestic politicians doing their job in a domestic post (Minister for External Territories (Australia); count as global influence or doing their domestic minister duty, how does this differ than Dole? Why would The Sydney Morning Herald; Australia's biggest newspaper [20]; leave it out of their initial obit? [21]; is this "virtually any" newspaper, if we leave out the biggest? A domestic minister of external territories, overseeing their main role - is not globally important; he didn't get Foreign Minister until after PNG independence. His role in PNG is very similar to Dole's in Kosovo. You can't cite a award from a less globally important country and say it counts, but ignore the other one; which was related to a much bigger event in history. It's this kind of inconsistency that confuses people. GuzzyG (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC) This. This is why I have accused you of WP:HOUNDING, and you completely refuse to listen to what I said on your talk page. You go after me (and looking through this page, you have consistently went after me FAR more than any other user, be it Jim Michael, Alsoriano, PeaceInOurTime, etc.) and yet you don’t even respond to the main discussion thread (which at this point is to do with Layton). You didn’t say a word for hours as the main discussion thread went on, and then you suddenly come on as soon as you see me comment, and you choose to directly respond to just me. Can you not understand how problematic this is, and how not okay this is? Anyway, there’s a big difference between the roles Dole and Peacock played - the latter was actually a minister directly responsible for the territory and playing a direct role in introducing self-government and moving the territory towards independence. Dole was a prominent supporter of Kosovo and went on a visit as such, but it’s hardly comparable and Dole was in no equivalent position, nor did he serve as Secretary Of State at any point. I would appreciate it if you immediately ceased WP:HOUNDING me, otherwise I will have to consider reporting you. TheScrubby (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC) I've always participated in conversations around Andrew Peacock - which is what this one was; i tend to agree with Jim and Peace; so there's no need for a discussion with their points and i have cordially when the opportunity presents; Alsoriano starts a discussion and then does not participate; that has nothing to do with me or my choice to comment. If you feel it's hounding to consider it odd that Peacock and Dole are similar yet seen as different here; report me. You continually make bad faith accusations towards me, have said before repeatedly i'm not welcome to comment here with quotes like "Which leads me to conclude that you have no intention of contributing to this page and its discussions constructively or in any good faith. If that is going to be the nature of your contributions here, then they are not welcome."; on my talk page you say this behaviour is related to a bad mood; here "I will admit as well that I wasn’t in the best mood in general last night, and the whole thing w. GoodDay really took me by unpleasant surprise and made me feel as if I was being targeted specifically"; so i have ignored this behaviour in good faith as it seems to be common you feel targeted all the time on this page; if you feel my contributions are hounding or not in good faith or not constructive, report me - cause the accusations and the derailing of my points to ignoring them when i ask why you misrepresented my point or ask you for sources etc doesn't lead to good faith discussion and it'd be better for others to assess at that point. GuzzyG (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC) I read Layton's article, but it doesn't say he had a significant international effect. Many countries have coalition governments. Merely meeting the head of state/gov of another country to discuss something isn't much. Being their country's representative at important summits such as those of the G7 is important, but he doesn't appear to have had such a role. Jim Michael (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC) It's a rarity to meet foreign leaders even as federal politicians. The fact that Layton did so proves that he's not some low-level Canadian politician. He was actually one of the most powerful politicians in Canada from 2004 to 2011. The 2005 budget was an NDP budget crafted by Layton. Canada didn't get involved in the Iraq War after Harper assumed office in 2006 because Layton refused to let it happen. He only lost significant clout after ironically enough his best election result (due to Harper getting a Majority). Without Layton, Canada's international-based policies would have been quite different. - CountingStars500 (talk) Just to make a brief point without getting heavily dragged into this, but if we were to include Layton for being the head of a third party in Canada that opposed involvement in the Iraq War, then that would set a problematic precedent where predominately domestic figures are included, including for example the aforementioned Michael Foot. In his case, as head of the UK Labour Party and as Leader of the Opposition, for giving bipartisan support to Margaret Thatcher and her government with regards to military action in the Falklands War. That, in my view, is insufficient grounds for a case by case inclusion here. TheScrubby (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC) @GuzzyG: Next time you want to mention me in a debate, ping me. And I ask you to keep me out of other debates I don't participate in. And if I open debates and don't continue it's because you honestly tire me out. I get tired that you want to be right in any way and that you want to be above others. I get tired that you want to dynamite these lists that have been elaborated with the consensus of many users in the most peaceful and constructive way possible. I get tired of you opening sub-debates. I get tired of your disrespectful attitudes towards the rest of the users. I get tired of having to maintain decorum with someone who does not have it with me or the rest of mates. I have a life beyond Wikipedia and I get tired of wasting my time on something that both you and I know our lives are not going to change. That's enough for me. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Happy Epiphany and stay safe. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC) I never brang you up first; i simply replied to someone else who brang you up asking why i never debated with you; if you don't like me responding to questions; that's fine - ask The Scrubby to stop bringing you up then. ""consistently went after me FAR more than any other user, be it Jim Michael, Alsoriano, PeaceInOurTime" is what i was replying too. I don't know why you singled me out in this case. There's surely an expectation of clarifying that if i am asked? "I get tired that you want to be right in any way and that you want to be above others." this is a presumption and there's nothing i can do about that. "I get tired that you want to dynamite these lists that have been elaborated with the consensus of many users in the most peaceful and constructive way possible." "Dynamiting" would be a weird term, since anyone can guess i actually want to open the requirements up more; i'm just following the strict/established global requirement and applying this attitude to every article; like when you asked me about Manuel Santana and i constructively broke down why people who play in restricted tournaments should not make this list. That's not a disrespectful attitude. You commented "Don't undervalue either our work here or the other people included. As Thescrubby said, take your time to read the discussions preceding this one before you continue to disrespect. Your arguments are very misguided." towards CountingStars and this kind of disrespectful WP:OWN attitude seems to be a problem on this list. You both take any disagreement as disrespect; both lash out and personally take digs at other editors for this; both disrespect people's contributions with a WP:OWN attitude if they oppose both of yours and then leave posts to single out users similar to threats. I've ignored this in good faith; but like i've said before; if you feel my contributions where i constructively break down this list in comparisons to established standards is wrong, than report me; but as far as im aware examining sources etc/breaking stuff down is normal practice; the "WHATABOUT" accusations go against academic practice like Case citation and Precedent. But don't misrepresent me and act like i've brang you up out of nowhere and if both of you genuinely think i'm disruptive; there's nothing else to do but report me. But noone WP:OWN's this page and i don't think my constructive efforts of searching sources, analysing stuff is a negative to this project. GuzzyG (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC) I initially did not intend to respond (largely because it's the holiday period, and dealing with this is honestly tiring and far from a priority), just as I chose not to respond to you when it became clear that you would not even acknowledge my criticisms and take them on board, and to continue with the way you have conducted yourself. But this is honestly complete nonsense, the way you have essentially ignored and disregarded why myself and Alsoriano (which I'll admit straight off the bat I am a little surprised that she commented the way she did given that I can't find what would have been the point which set her off. But I'm sure she had her reasons, and I'm not going to try and speak on her behalf) have criticised your approach here, and have instead turned around and paint this blatantly false picture of us. When you've had more than one person now who has expressed disdain for your perceived conceitedness and arrogance, perhaps that is something that ought to be reflected on rather than being dismissed as "there's nothing I can do about that". As for "dynamiting", you know full well what Alsoriano was referring to. Back in April when the original discussions regarding which political figures ought to be included took place as a consequence of the Walter Mondale discussions (where there was, quite rightly, criticism that US VP figures were included immediately, without debate and had been entitled to an image whereas any other deputy head of state/government and even some heads of government/state did not get anywhere near the same entitlement and were nearly always questioned), you went in with a highly belligerent, antagonistic and obstructive attitude (describing the entire discussion as "ridiculous" and "It's so ludicrous it's not even worth acknowledging"; accusing the participants of the discussion who did not agree with you as a "self defeating bunch" and accusing me personally of bias for supporting the inclusion of Andrew Peacock in spite of very obvious evidence to the contrary r.e. bias; and myself & Jim Michael of racism/supporting structural racism), and rather than help contribute constructively with what you would have liked to have seen with the criteria (such as, I dunno, making an exception for G20 Opposition Leaders) you made clear in no uncertain terms your contempt at the very idea of such a inclusion criteria in the first place, and that you had zero intention of contributing in a constructive manner ("I will fight this rule", "I will sacrifice myself happily to bring more eyes on this and continue to fight this dumb standard", "you may moan about civility but i'll moan louder that this negatively affects smaller countries" - the last comment now being ironic given your recent strong objections to the inclusion of leaders and de facto heads of state from smaller countries such as Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Grenada, countries where they would otherwise get next-to-no representation here). We had around half a year after those discussions where there was a firm consensus in favour of the political figures criteria that had resulted from that, and which has served us well. There had been plenty of other inclusion discussions that took place in the interim as well, such as those to do with sports and entertainment figures. You chose to remain absent from everything here throughout this time, and not taking part in anything. Be it to contribute suggestions or voice concerns in said discussions, or to highlight figures who you felt shouldn't have been included (such as Francisco Brines) or were left out and who in your view should have been included (such as Buddhadeb Dasgupta). Then you suddenly return during the Bob Dole discussions and immediately engage in whataboutisms using comparisons of figures from incomparable categories from political figures (or bringing up who you think should be included for the political criteria - specifically G20 Opposition Leaders, long after the discussions had been settled and long after you completely refused to engage constructively and then chose to sit out further discussions on the matter, therefore preventing yourself from originally suggesting this in the first place), insinuating that Alsoriano WP:OWN's this "list", and derail discussions (which you did so comprehensively with the Carmen Salinas thread, in which in your initial response Salinas and her own importance was not even mentioned once and instead you chose to engage in heavy whataboutisms. How is that not obstructive in the slightest?). I tried to suggest to you multiple times that if you wanted to see certain (i.e. G20 Opposition Leaders) figures included; had strong reservations about the inclusion of figures from other categories (i.e. individual Olympic gold medalists, of which you were absent from the discussions centring on them and the inclusion of sports figures more broadly); or about individual figures you would like to see included or excluded (and in the case of those not included, were more often than not excluded unintentionally because nobody brought them up and they slipped under the radar), you should engage constructively by opening discussion threads centring on them rather than carry on with your obstructionist, derailing whataboutisms on other threads with little to no relation with who you bring up. But you never take this advice, and you persist with this behaviour. That is what I presume Alsoriano alluded to when she mentioned your disrespectful attitude towards users here, a lot of whom have been active, constructive participants here over the long-term - and that's not even getting into my own personal grievance that I feel you have engaged in WP:HOUNDING towards me on this page, of which I've already expressed quite firmly why, and of which I'm not the only user to have taken note of this on. There has been no "lashing out", "personal digs" or disrespect towards the contributions of any user (certainly there hasn't been any from my end towards CountingStars, EmilyPhillipson, etc. in spite of our various disagreements) with the exception of the call-outs towards yourself which under the circumstances (as described here and by Alsoriano) is not without justification. The insinuation of a WP:OWN attitude is of course absolute nonsense; there is a consensus with the political figures criteria as well as some basic (albeit nowhere near as comprehensive) standards for entertainment and sports figures that has been built over the last 7 months by multiple users over various discussions - what disagreements there are/have been over a handful of individual figures throughout this period (and in cases like Mondale and Norm Macdonald, I myself ultimately and respectfully conceded to consensus in favour of inclusion. Hardly a WP:OWN attitude by any stretch). I don't really think there's much further to say besides to ask you to seriously reflect on the nature of your contributions and why several users (not just in this month, but also in April) have expressed disdain with your (and nobody else's) approach here, rather than self-righteously dismissing such complaints about yourself and refusing to even consider altering your approach in terms of contributions here. Myself and Alsoriano have made ourselves perfectly clear; I'm not going into another lengthy debate here about this, especially considering I almost didn't respond to this in the first place. I'm now going to focus on my personal life in the coming weeks, what with this being the holiday period. As already expressed by Alsoriano, that's enough from me and I wish everyone a Happy Holidays (regardless of differences we have on Wikipedia itself). TheScrubby (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)