User:InvadingInvader/Against international notability

International notability is a philosophy and set of standards once prevalent on recent Wikipedia articles on years which states that all entries should have equal international notability, avoiding bias towards one particular nation, which most commonly is the United States. The standard calls that all events (and formerly notable deaths prior to an RFC gutting their section from the Years articles) listed on a "main year article", such as 1885 and 2023, should be notable in all countries, very similar to the inclusion criteria section of the deprecated Recent Years proposal.

Editors of WP:YEARS who have contributed to discussions pushing for international notability have often been exclusionist, International notability has not been agreed to by the Wikipedia Community on a consensus level. The archives of Talk:2022 is perhaps the most stringent example of international notability being enforced as a local consensus, though overturned by the wider Wikipedia community. This is demonstrated through RFCs on the inclusion of Robbie Coltrane and Barbara Walters in the previously-present deaths list, which was a gallery and list of notable deaths in a year.

The purpose of this essay is not to overturn international notability, as it does not seem to be enforced as of the writing of this article, but rather to argue against it from being a standard again. I would recommend this essay be used by editors on YEARS articles who don't wish to see international notability returned.

What composes the international notability standards?

International notability, as synthesized from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years, Talk:2021, Talk:2022, part of Talk:2023, as well as an ANI discussion regarding the international notability standard, compromises of the following ideas for inclusion on year articles:

• Events and figures should be nationally notable across multiple countries, beyond their home nation.
• Entries should especially avoid Americentrism.
• Entries should be supported by major international awards or by non-government organizations.
• Entries should not be included based on fans persistently adding entries.
• International coverage of a figure or event does not equate to international notability.

Why should we not use international notability?

There are multiple reasons, though the TLDR of it is that it assumes bad faith, does not take into account due weight, and attempts to right great wrongs, which is not our role as an encyclopedia.

I do concede that the international notability standard is being made in good faith. There must be a higher standard of notability per the GNG in order to justify inclusion on a list. I don't disagree with this at all. We should not have a years list filled with every single thing that Donald Trump does. Fandom also could be rationally considered to not have read Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

With regard to the fans though, instead of just writing them off as fans, we should take the opportunity to invite them to join the Wikipedia project, and by extension the movement. Most fans likely want to take part in spreading free open knowledge as well. We're supposed to assume that as editors per Assume Good Faith. We should invite new voices and take them into consideration, not censor them, prevent discussion, or when a discussion is started, overwhelm them. Despite how many discussions have been started in the YEARS space on single inclusions and exclusions there have been, most which did not involve the wider Wikipedia community have gone the way of the exclusionary international notability standard.

Furthermore, international notability attempts to right the great "wrong" of Americentrism, which is debatably a wrong. Naturally the dominant countries are going to get a lot more coverage written about them than the smaller ones. If China ruled the world, Sinocentrism would exist; likewise for Britain, France, Russia (and the USSR before it), Saudi Arabia, Germany, even Namibia if it became a global power. The countries with the most resources naturally will have the highest likelihood of churning out notable well-documented events.

Righting the great "wrong" of Americentrism, while not a bad idea, does not fall in line with Wikipedia's neutral point of view either. Actively opposing Americentrism would violate the due weight section of NPOV as well. Wikipedia articles should reflect what we consider as a society, not direct what we should cover as a society.

Lastly, how do we truly define international notability? The above standards as compiled seem to be very arbitrary, and it would leave out significant figures. Is it meant specifically to be anti-American? Christiane Amanpour was frequently cited in the Walters RFC as an internationally notable journalist who covered many countries, but how could she be more notable than Barbara Walters in her impact on journalism? Walters broke the glass ceiling; very few female journalists would be as prevalent as they are without her impact, or if Walters didn't do what she did, whichever female journalist would have made her same impact. Considering a journalist who in her own right is notable for covering many different scenarios to be more notable than the glass-shattering groundbreaking woman who would have allowed her to do what she did would be a very tough stand to defend. If anything, international notability could just be a euphemism for implementing anti-Americanism.

What do we use instead?

If multiple news sources cover it as a major event, subject to some editorial review, put it in.

There has to be some editorial oversight, and just because Kim Kardashian tweets out that she had another kid and Al Jazeera covers it doesn't mean it belongs here. However, if something affects a lot of people, I don't see a reason as to why it shouldn't be included. Given that abortion as of the writing of this essay is a globally contentious topic which affects every fertile woman and many academic disciplines, as well as human rights, why not list countries' moves on abortion as events? Given that LGBT rights are often being debated in many different countries, why not include significant developments on that? Same idea goes for scientific research and development, major corporate actions, mergers and acquisitions (as well as influential laws passed by countries to regulate them), small events which cause legislation and international condemnation to spring up around the world (such as the US BLM protests or attacks on Paris perpetrated by the Islamic State), and large global subculture movements with major followings such as e-sports and Formula 1.

International notability is already on Wikipedia. We don't have to be so arbitrary in deciding it, as when we do, we end up causing more harm than good.

Could this be blamed on the actions undertaken by supporters of international notability to perpetrate the standard?

The possibility certainly exists. If international notability as a standard had reached consensus, only by a new consensus could the community overturn it. Given that international notability was a local consensus which per the ANI discussion was enforced as a standard derived from a deprecated essay, and given that it never had consensus in the first place, the overturning only needed one RFC (but in practice a few RFCs).

It seems very unlikely that Wikipedia as a community will ever agree to international notability as described here.

How can I avoid perpetuating a standard that doesn't have consensus?

We have many essays, guidelines and policies on this already, but I would be happy to give a few of the most egregious examples.

1. Avoid phrasing akin to "we don't do this here" and "this is how we do things" without citing a discussion, a policy, or a guideline. And even if there is consensus for or against something, phrase it as "Consensus as of X day is against this practice; if you wish to change, feel free to discuss at this talk page". This gives the outlook that anyone can contribute to a discussion in good faith and that everyone can have a reasonable say, averting ownership behavior. (WP:OWN)
2. If you see yourself writing comments that state "not enough people are doing this", this translates roughly to "not enough people agree with me". Might want to drop the stick. (WP:DTS)
3. Don't respond to every comment. It may evidence, either in actuality or perception, you bludgeoning discussions. (WP:BLUDGEON)
4. If you're politically campaigning for your own merit, i.e. calling yourself "the good editors" here and indirectly referencing people who disagree with you as not such, you have got to pump the breaks. (WP:AGF)