Talk:2022 in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Election Results

I've been seeing some editors add in information (and subsequently see such information removed) with regard to election results, like Ilhan Omar winning her primary, Arapio losing, etc. For future reference, can we establish here (and for future articles like this) that US election results, unless it's a major federal election like mentioning that the Democrats or Republicans took control of the US House/Senate, the winner of presidential elections, or unprecedented major victories (like the first trans person to be elected to the House of Representatives or the first woman to be elected NYC mayor)? InvadingInvader (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Criteria for Shooting Inclusion

I think we need to cut down on the amount of shootings listed here and put all the future unimportant ones on this list here. The criteria I propose for future mass shootings on this page is:

• At least 5 fatalities and any amount of injuries, OR
• At least 3 fatalities and 11 injuries, OR
• At least 1 fatality and 17 injuries, OR
• Any notable fatality or injury, such as a celebrity or person with a wiki article being killed or injured.

What do you guys think of this as a general list of principles? InvadingInvader (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Why not just keep it simple and only include ones that have their own articles? TomCat4680 (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

That works as well. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Include all attacks which have their own articles, as well as all of those which involve people who have their own articles & are significant. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I like that idea too. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposing stricter inclusion standards (Result: general standards proposed and set)

The page is massive and getting bigger by the day. Current article length is at about 313KB as of writing, and I do think that we need to cut down on some of the events that we add. I'd like to propose some general standards that we can use to help more uniformly judge content on whether it's included.

• First of all, if this is an event that sends out alerts from all the major news agencies (CNN, Fox, CBS, AP, NYT, WSJ, and others) and/or the event in itself is sufficient enough to both have its own wiki article as well as follow ups, it's a no-brainer to throw it in. I'm primarily referring to things like the Martha's Vineyard migrant crisis, the Robb elementary shootings, etc. The media generally does show what people care about, and if people care about it, not just a vocal minority like the Proud Boys or the Sunrise Movement, throw it in.
• Assuming that it doesn't satisfy the above I would also include events that have a major effect on Americans as a whole. Most people aren't affected by a large group of migrants being stranded on a Texas freeway, but people do care about shipping rates, which is why I'd choose the USPS and FedEx rate hikes over including 25 migrants stranded in the Permian Basin. Other examples of events which would be included under this idea would be economic events (like significant jobs reports and the Fed hiking rates), new laws in state legislatures and congress
• Incorporate the mass shooting criteria from above as suggested by Jim Michael 2. All attacks that have their own articles or involve people that have their own articles should be included, but a shooting which kills one person and injures only two more, while sad, would clutter up the article too quickly.
• Condensing too closely related events. If a bill is passed by Congress and signed by Biden, condense it into one event.
• As a minor improvement, remove unnecessary filler. For example, when mentioning a federal court decision, instead of "Judge Example of the United States District Court of Exampleton", just say "Federal judge Example". Also, we don't need to mention parties, states, and districts when covering politicians; wiki link them and readers can learn more about them. This includes removing stuff like (D-New York's 5th District") or "New York Democratic Senator".
• With regard to litigation or long-term efforts, unless substantial (as in a decision), let's cut it down. We're not an Elon Musk or Alex Jones news machine.
• Whatever the entry, keep it as concise as possible while still summarizing the event accurately. In case you didn't know we have wikilinks lol

I also strongly urge editors to discuss more; sadly, we don't have as active as a talk community as Talk:2022, but this doesn't mean that talk pages here should be ghost towns.

Thanks for reading, and please let me know your thoughts on whether this criteria should become consensus or any changes you think we should implement. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@68.100.154.123 @TomCat4680 @4me689, @Wjfox2005Wjfox2005, @Losipov pinging some of the most frequent editors of this article for their opinion on my new criteria InvadingInvader (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader Overall I like the ideas. The first point is, obviously, a good idea and a no-brainer. How is it different, though, than say what you put for Jones or Musk with litigation? Those are also "follow-ups" in a way, and I would caution over-additions of these events on the page (if that makes sense). New laws overall will be useful, but they have to be significant enough to be included (like you stated); Fed rate hikes and other actions like these are definitely noteworthy enough. Speaking of congress laws, how about something like this setup: "The US House passes a bill to ban assault weapons. The Senate subsequently passes it a week later on [insert date] and is signed/vetoed by President Biden on [insert date]". Would this be an example of what you suggested? Just a thought. As for court cases, is the addition of a full SCOTUS citation for landmark cases really necessary? I feel that it takes up a lot of space and is just filler. I won't change it without consensus, but it should be something to consider. For the judges, we discussed this separately on your talk page a little while back, but I think the same thing applies here: keep it short and concise. Can you give some suggestions for how things should be structured based on these suggestions? That would help.

Again, I think they're good points and will help improve the page considerably. Losipov (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Losipov The example you put for congressional laws is exactly what I had in mind. However, I would mark the date in which it was passed by the second of two chambers to approve it, and if a wikilink exists for the legislation, mention it. Same for state legislation.

For the Supreme Court, I would only mention the case name and the briefest of summaries, except for extremely monumental stuff like Dobbs and how it overturned Roe and Casey.

An example would be "The Supreme Court rules in Spider-Man v. Reichstag that the first amendment doesn't apply to Wikipedia policies." Exclude full citations, though, but include elements that have articles, and obviously link the case if it has a page. I'm neutral on including the justices' vote margins.

I'm on the fence with other rulings. My belief is to rely on coverage on whether to include it, so if multiple RS's cover something broadly, include it. For the entries themselves, though, mention the name of the judge if they have a wiki link (or if y'all want, use a Red Link if a federal judge doesn't have a wiki page to encourage an article's creation) and keep it concise.

An example for federal cases, assuming that they garner enough attention, would be "Federal judge Yeslegal Threats rules that President Boaty McBoatface must turn over sensitive documents regarding him and Kim Fatty III to the Supreme Cabal". I know that Mynameisspam1 (who due to losing their password has told me they IP edit now as 68.100.154.123) has generally been keen on including the court names, in instances such as "Judge Jimbo Wales of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Wikipedia", though in the end, it's just filler. Readers can click the wikilink for the judge or google their name and see what court it was in.

InvadingInvader (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

InvadingInvader & Losipov, here's my thoughts on notability for these pages

mass shootings: in my opinion mass shooting should be only included here if said story has an wikipedia article or made the World Wide News. some examples that fits this criteria are the Robb Elementary School shooting and the Highland Park parade shooting.

Supreme Court cases: in my opinion should only be included if it's made the world wide news or change something big about America. some examples that fits this criteria are Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization which got rid of the constitutional right to abortion & New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen which set back gun legislation.

elections: definitely 100% instant include presidential and midterm elections. as for special elections in-between, I think in my opinion, only at federal and state level election should be included, Gubernatorial, senate, and House of Representatives elections are the only ones that should be included, no County & mayoral elections.

Justices: only the appointing of Supreme Court Justices to be included, we don't want to clogged up this pages with district and state judges getting appointed. and again like invading Invaders said, we shouldn't include filler like "Judge Jimbo Wales of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Wikipedia"

there are some my opinions for now I'll probably add more later 4me689 (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that not every Supreme Court case should be in...just the ones that are widely covered from either general news sources, sector-specific news sources with occasional coverage from the general news, and cases which attain notability later which we retroactively add, especially in those which set precedent for other court cases not notable enough yet but covered by RS's. An example for both of the last two motives would be Southwest Airlines v. Saxon which dealt with forced arbitration; the case was widely covered by business-oriented RS's with some coverage from more general news sources (Slate, WSJ, Justia, and Jackson Lewis), and how Southwest v. Saxon is setting the stage for a legal battle involving Domino's Pizza (see Law360 and Bloomberg Law). There may be other cases which are cited hugely by RS's we add in the future, and we can always come back to older articles and add them if they become famous much later after they're decided. InvadingInvader (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader for the past couple of years I've read news articles during every SCOTUS term that includes a number of "high-profile" cases, even if they are narrower in the end (they get talked about in CNN, Fox, AP, NBC, etc as "what to look out for this term"). I feel like this goes to your point about new outlets sending out alerts for these decisions when the time comes should be included, so I think for cases that are considered "high-profile" and mentioned constantly, they should be included (if you did not already state something similar).

As for what @4me689 stated, I think those are also good suggestions. I will say that there are cases in which appointing state or district judges can be significant, especially if they will handling significant cases or if they would tilt the balance of power in the courts (eg: a judge in [state] is appointed to its state Supreme Court, just in time to hear a consequential case). That said, I agree that SCOTUS appointees would be an automatic inclusion and not so much other types of courts. Losipov (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to include "what to look out for this term", as that's a WP:CRYSTALBALL thing. If we're in June, though, we could add it to predicted and scheduled for next year when it comes to landmark cases. I intended to refer to if a case like Brown v. Board didn't become famous until 1973; we'd retroactively add it to 1954 and mention it briefly in 1973 on that entry involving Brown. Otherwise, I'm all in, no strings attached InvadingInvader (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Idea: Minor United States events in 2022 (Result: not done)

In a bit of a continuation from the above section, I'm noticing a lot of good faith contributions to this article which lack sufficient notability to be on the main 2022 in the US article. If we have a minor events article, we could keep higher standards for notability here while allowing more events to be included on WP. However, if this is done, we'd have to be VERY careful to avoid the wrath of Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. I'm curious on what y'all think on creating such article and if WP:NOTNEWS would kill this before it's created; I'd only support this idea if others support it, but I think it's necessary to bring this idea up for discussion.

Pinging @4me689, @Losipov, @TomCat4680, @Wjfox2005, and @68.100.154.123 (@Mynameisspam1) for their opinions. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: If it's not notable enough to surpass WP:NOTNEWS it probably doesn't need to be in its own article either. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem is that so much stuff is notable. I'm thinking of stuff that still passes the general notability threshold but doesn't pass our stricter inclusion standards from last section can be thrown into the Minor Events article. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be a good idea because 2022 in the United States is probably the most longest article out of the year in country article, cuz it's due to the country's immense freedom. 4me689 (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Started a draft article...see it at Draft:Minor United States events in 2022. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader: can you add some events to the article 4me689 (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

A little caught up with some other things rn actually but I'll try to get to it. InvadingInvader (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright I've started populating the list with previously removed entries. We could also use this list to include all the mass shootings that don't meet the above criteria InvadingInvader (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Heath High School shooting shooter parole (Result: exclusion)

@68.100.154.123 wishes to include the event of Michael Carneal applying for parole under September 19. I would argue that this event in itself (not the shooting but the parole application) is not notable enough. A parole application in itself if it hasn't been accepted isn't notable enough, and there is no major effect that parole would have. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader: I haven't done much research into this, but it doesn't sound particularly notable. Johnson524 (Talk!) 20:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It'd be rare for gaining parole to be important enough to include; applying for it never is. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Minor United States events in 2022 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Minor United States events in 2022 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor United States events in 2022 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

– Joe (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Federal government section

Whoever's continuing to pop in (now & then) reorganising the 'federal government section' (the president, vice president, chief justice, house speaker, senate majority leader & Congress) into box form? Please stop doing so. That's not how it's done for all the other Year in the United States pages. Instead, open up an RFC on the topic & seek a consensus for such changes. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Should we include the Parkland shooter's sentence? (Result: include)

I'm having doubts about notability for this event but I'd like to bring it up to you guys. It's just a sentencing, and the shooting has already occurred. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I would say no. In fact, I came to the talk page just now to question whether this list puts WP:UNDUE prominence on individual crimes. Two of the six sentences of prose in the lead are about shootings, and many items in the list are individual acts of crime that have tenuous notability. With this and some other misc items, I think it might be to the point where the article (and possibly a few others in this series of articles) needs to be pruned for WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I would agree; usually stuff that affects the country (like Fed hikes) or what the people generally care about (like Depp v. Heard) should be kept, but aside from mass shootings, most crimes or events should be excluded unless it causes the same uproar that George Floyd did. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a blanket exception for any one category of crime, especially for one as nebulous as mass shootings. Most of them conflict with NOTNEWS. George Floyd is a great example of a crime that warrants inclusion, because it had clear notability that extended beyond the actual events of the crime. Besides federal/Congressional investigations, the only crime-related entries that warrant inclusion in my opinion are the Robb Elementary attack, the conviction of Chauvin, and maybe the attack on Salman Rushdie given his notability. The problem extends beyond crime as well: the list includes product recalls, miscellaneous lawsuits, Jill Biden getting sick with "mild symptoms", and people announcing things that hadn't actually happened yet. It's obvious from reading it that people have just been adding news stories as they emerge without considering historical relevance or notability. I think that this page is due for a cleanup, especially as we're approaching the end of the year. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I think as well. I'm going to start removing some unnotable events. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd say yes. It's the end of a major mass murder case and the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history and there's sentences for others on here already. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's important enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

midterm elections for USA is missing from 2022 page

Other country elections are listed, so why not add USA's midterms? USA, after all, is considered the most influential country in the world... 2603:6011:9600:52C0:F471:688F:5BB5:AF34 (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

They're at the top in their own section here where they belong. 2022 in the United States#Midterm elections TomCat4680 (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

If you're asking why the midterms aren't on the main 2022 page, it is because the midterm elections do not result in any changes to a the US head of state. Parliamentary elections for other nations are listed, but because that usually results in a head of state either maintaining office or being succeeded by another person. The midterms do not effect whether or not Biden is in office, but the 2024 general election will be listed in that year as it will effect his incumbency. PaulRKil (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

They affect Congress though and laws don't get passed without them. More important than the president if you ask me. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you, but that seems to be the consensus among editors. It was also probably to mitigate how american-centric English wikipedia tends to be. PaulRKil (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 in the United States collage (Result: sent to WikiProject Years RfC)

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

---

@GoodDay: removed the collage with no proper reason. This talk section is to talk about 2022 in the United States collage

In my opinion, keep the collage, it is a great addition and make the page more visually appealing, what is everyone opinion

Pinging @InvadingInvader, @Losipov, @TomCat4680, @Wjfox2005, and @68.100.154.123 (@Mynameisspam1) for their opinions. 4me689 (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep it. We’re coming close to the end of the year. Additionally, if someone’s removing collages from an article without explaining why, or any other content, it can be considered vandalism. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd additionally add that Good Day stated his reason for removing the collage was "No consensus". That doesn't seem entirely correct to me. The collage was added a while ago and most editors have been in favor of a collage; if there was consensus against it, it would have been removed and/or discussed earlier. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

No consensus @InvadingInvader:, because there wasn't any sought, to add the college images. I recommend an RFC concerning all Year pages be opened. International, as well as national Year pages. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

A collage here would be a WP:BOLD edit, and based on the community's reception so far in both this discussion and the lack of action, we've generally accepted it. Doesn't seem useful to remove what isn't broken judging from the community's perspective. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Makes the page more interesting. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Delete- as it's cumbersome & not used in any of the other Year in the USA pages. Note, the college images were added without gaining a consensus. Same situation with International Year pages. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I've opened up an RFC on this matter, at the talkpage of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Years. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep - I'm in favour of collages on year by country & main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Assuming we don't want to go through another RFC, which could again be ruled as "no decision"? As a compromise, I recommend having the college included, but in its current size. Indeed, the colleges on the International Year pages, should be downsized to match. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to agree to that. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Tweak it bit. It's the college on the International Year pages, that need to be downsized to 'this' pages' college. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

got it thanks InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)