Talk:2022 in the United States/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Undue emphasis on crime and mass shootings
The coverage of mass shootings and other crimes in this article is far beyond what is necessary. One of the three paragraphs in the lead is entirely about mass shootings, two of the article's six images are related to mass shootings, the events section has a "further information" link to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 as if that was the entire subject of the section, and the word "shooting" appears in the article 54 times. I get that it's an interesting topic to write about and if it bleeds, it leads, but it's not reasonable to list every crime that makes headlines in a given year. The significance barrier for crimes and other criminal justice topics is currently much lower than it is for other topics of similar importance. I would suggest removing instances of individual crimes except for those that are truly exceptional (such as 2022 Buffalo shooting and Robb Elementary School shooting). I've added an importance inline tag to some of the least significant crime-related events. As I've said in the past, I think this list needs significant pruning, but this is probably the most egregious category. If we need something to replace these less significant items, I would suggest more science-related items, which don't appear as much since they generally aren't part of the "rush to add news stories as they come out" process. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, I think roughly half of the mass shootings should be removed, and I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to have criteria be met for their inclusion ie less than five victims excluding the perpetrator. Though, I believe it is important to highlight them due to how significant, and unique, mass shootings are to the United States. Main year articles have covered Covered COVID developments, good and bad, because it is an ongoing global issue. I see no reason why this article should treat mass shootings in a similar manner and give it due coverage.
- I think a majority of the ones you tagged can be debated but I fully disagree with the Club Q shooting not being important as I think it fits as a truly exceptional event given that it explicitly targeted LGBT people and is the shooter is being charged with bias-motivated crimes. PaulRKil (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a venue for bringing awareness to an issue or a cause, and that is not a valid reason for inclusion or emphasis. Random crimes are not even remotely comparable to COVID-19; the former only affect a small handful of people while the latter caused a universal change in human behavior for years. I think a five victim limit would be an improvement, but I would suggest a higher standard of unique or unprecedented. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't view it as bringing awareness to mass shootings. Wikipedia says the goal of an encyclopedia is to provide information. The fact that mass shootings have routinely increased year over year is information worthy of inclusion in my perspective, but we should limit the number of events we list. @InvadingInvader has been doing a good job removing items that aren't that worthy of inclusion on this article, so I'd value their input. (I apologize in advance if you hate being tagged) PaulRKil (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- And that would be perfectly reasonable to include in mass shootings in the United States, and it should be included there. The heavy inclusion of mass shootings on 2022 in the United States, however, is disproportionate and comes off as trying to keep a controversial issue at the forefront (which isn't appropriate regardless of what the issue is). This is a clear example of a "but it's true" coatrack article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- No worries Paul; I don't agree with removing all of them. Ones that had higher death/injury counts and ones representing hate can stay on. I do not think that removing as many as Alien suggested is good. I acknowledge undue weight exists, but it's not chronic or severe. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't view it as bringing awareness to mass shootings. Wikipedia says the goal of an encyclopedia is to provide information. The fact that mass shootings have routinely increased year over year is information worthy of inclusion in my perspective, but we should limit the number of events we list. @InvadingInvader has been doing a good job removing items that aren't that worthy of inclusion on this article, so I'd value their input. (I apologize in advance if you hate being tagged) PaulRKil (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a venue for bringing awareness to an issue or a cause, and that is not a valid reason for inclusion or emphasis. Random crimes are not even remotely comparable to COVID-19; the former only affect a small handful of people while the latter caused a universal change in human behavior for years. I think a five victim limit would be an improvement, but I would suggest a higher standard of unique or unprecedented. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think some can go, but I don't think it's a chronic problem. Some which have been flagged (like the Club Q shooting) are erroneous since that one was a hate incident. I'll review the ones flagged. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- All the crimes which have their own articles should be included on articles such as this one. That's how it's done on other country subarticles & we shouldn't have a different inclusion bar on US articles just because of a higher rate of shootings. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Post large-removal updates
So I recently engaged in a mass-removal of unnecessary events and phrasing. I do think that many of the events highlighted with Importance tags were merited for removal, but the general guideline I used to determine if stuff was removed was the following:
- My personal criteria for mass shootings is 10 injuries and/or 4 kills.
- If a shooting did not have more than 10 injuries and/or 4 kills, did it exemplify identity targeting? Identity targeting refers to occupation, race, sex, gender, etc. For this criteria, I left on the one shooting which killed police officers, the anti-Taiwanese shooting right after Buffalo, the Pittsburgh shooting, and a few other events. I also thank Paul for removing the tag on Club Q's shooting; the tag was definitely used with overkill.
I would encourage others to do some further review on events as well before using the importance tag on them or removing. When in doubt, use this talk page. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hate crime also means it was homophobic/transphobic, religious or political too so check for those types of shootings too in the mass shootings article. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think these would be good criteria for an article about crime in the United States, but that's not what this article is. I believe that these criteria are still too loose, causing undue weight to be given to crime-related events. I don't think death or injury counts should be considered at all; all of the other topics in this article are based on historical significance rather than some arbitrary quantitative measure. Many of the events still listed are only of local significance, no different than any street crime or interpersonal crime. I also believe that the inclusion of crime in the lead and the images is massively undue (personally, I think the entire lead should be rewritten next month to better cover the actual contents of the article). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely convinced that this is undue. Shootings are becoming more American by the day and more commonplace, but it's gaining increased awareness in the American public as well. Mass shootings in the United States defy the traditional convention of a type of event becoming more common and less notable at the same time (in other words, it's not an inversely-correlated relationship). This is partly because of the media, but the media's power can't be denied; Congress and activists talk about mass shootings all the time, and on both sides of the political aisle we can't stop talking about it. The American point of view, which this article should be written from since it's about a year's events in the United States, is to focus a lot on mass shootings. Good luck trying to go into the middle of San Francisco, Washington DC, or even McKinney Texas holding up a sign that says "mass shootings don't matter" without getting a barrage of criticism or angry people shouting at you. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Lol, I never claimed that describing a controversial topic as undue was a good way to make friends. I also wouldn't claim that they "don't matter" though (and I don't think any reasonable person would). But there is a scale where some have more encyclopedic relevance than others, particularly in a broad overview article like this. My issue isn't that they shouldn't be included, but that the way they're included is disproportionate to the many other relevant topics that don't get this relaxed standard. I could argue that the "American point of view" would also have heavy focus on Taylor Swift and Top Gun Maverick, but we rightly expect a higher level of historic significance. Now, if the Year in the United States articles were expanded to be full prose articles (as I've supported elsewhere), then I would support a paragraph about crime that prominently mentioned mass shootings. But for the time being, they're very surface level lists of events. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- How would you move to include shootings then? All of them, the most notable that happened, the ones that are examples of hate crimes, or none at all and just a paragraph in the lead, or in a manner I haven't mentioned? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- I would say any that had consequence at a national level should definitely be included. I fully understand that this is a nebulous measurement, but that's the case for everything on this list, and that's why these sorts of discussions are important in my opinion. I think the ones that are still there are a reasonable enough compromise. It's the paragraph in the lead that's probably the most undue, in my opinion. The lead doesn't even mention COVID-19, scientific news, natural disasters, or elections, but there's a paragraph set aside for mass shootings. If it were to be mentioned in the lead, I think it should be in the context of the gun control legislation that passed this year. On a related note, I also wonder whether culture war issues warrant a mention in the lead outside of abortion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- On the lead, we have 2022 in science, and COVID doesn't really matter to the American people at large. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- I would say any that had consequence at a national level should definitely be included. I fully understand that this is a nebulous measurement, but that's the case for everything on this list, and that's why these sorts of discussions are important in my opinion. I think the ones that are still there are a reasonable enough compromise. It's the paragraph in the lead that's probably the most undue, in my opinion. The lead doesn't even mention COVID-19, scientific news, natural disasters, or elections, but there's a paragraph set aside for mass shootings. If it were to be mentioned in the lead, I think it should be in the context of the gun control legislation that passed this year. On a related note, I also wonder whether culture war issues warrant a mention in the lead outside of abortion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- How would you move to include shootings then? All of them, the most notable that happened, the ones that are examples of hate crimes, or none at all and just a paragraph in the lead, or in a manner I haven't mentioned? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Lol, I never claimed that describing a controversial topic as undue was a good way to make friends. I also wouldn't claim that they "don't matter" though (and I don't think any reasonable person would). But there is a scale where some have more encyclopedic relevance than others, particularly in a broad overview article like this. My issue isn't that they shouldn't be included, but that the way they're included is disproportionate to the many other relevant topics that don't get this relaxed standard. I could argue that the "American point of view" would also have heavy focus on Taylor Swift and Top Gun Maverick, but we rightly expect a higher level of historic significance. Now, if the Year in the United States articles were expanded to be full prose articles (as I've supported elsewhere), then I would support a paragraph about crime that prominently mentioned mass shootings. But for the time being, they're very surface level lists of events. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely convinced that this is undue. Shootings are becoming more American by the day and more commonplace, but it's gaining increased awareness in the American public as well. Mass shootings in the United States defy the traditional convention of a type of event becoming more common and less notable at the same time (in other words, it's not an inversely-correlated relationship). This is partly because of the media, but the media's power can't be denied; Congress and activists talk about mass shootings all the time, and on both sides of the political aisle we can't stop talking about it. The American point of view, which this article should be written from since it's about a year's events in the United States, is to focus a lot on mass shootings. Good luck trying to go into the middle of San Francisco, Washington DC, or even McKinney Texas holding up a sign that says "mass shootings don't matter" without getting a barrage of criticism or angry people shouting at you. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Could this be a Featured List?
I myself have made only a few edits to this page so it wouldn't be right if I were to nominate it, but could this be a Featured List? The page has been actively edited and added to since the start of the year, there have been multiple discussions on the talk page on the relevance of many of the events listed regarding notability, and the page is full and cited. If there is anything else needed, I would be happy to help get this page there if it isn't there already 🙂 Johnson524 (Talk!) 19:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Invitation to collaborate on a prose version of this article
Hey guys! In light of attempting to bring @Thebiguglyalien's prose formats of year articles to our US articles, I have started in my sandbox a project on making 2022 in the United States a prosified article. I'd like to invite all of you to collaborate on this project and join us.
The link to join is User:InvadingInvader/sandbox. Pinging recent and major editors of both 2022 in the US and 2023 in the US here; feel free to ping other editors here if you do think that they would be of valuable addition.
Pings
|
|---|
Thanks, and happy editing! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, so how will it look like? Will we split it based on sections (politics, law, sports, movies, economic, etc.)? Digitslain12 (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)