Talk:2011/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

9/11 10th aneversery

Why isn't the 10th aneversery listed on here. I would think that something speacial would happen on that day.

Anniversaries of past events are not, in and of themselves, events. -/- Warren 11:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation

That's mostly common sense. 1900 wasn't called 'one thousand nine hundred' for simplicity's sake. 'Two-thousand' is simple to say, and 'twenty-hundred' would sound somewhat foolish.

The double-zero factor prevents people from saying 'twenty-oh-eight.' By all aspects, that sounds incorrect. However, in 2010, it is certain that 'twenty-ten' will prevail.

I find it strange that the 'Pronounciation' section is included in this article at all. It only seems to be rambling opinions of 'experts' with no sense on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.44.232 (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the addition of a 'Pronunciation' Section- it lets you know that others are wondering too, and what is predicted to come. I overheard a cheerleading squad debating whether or not to pronounce their graduation year "two-thousand (and) eleven", or "twenty-eleven". It's interesting to see an online debate as well. unsigned

I don't know about the English-speaking world but at least in Norway it's not common to say "ten fifty", "ten seventy-nine" etc for years in the 11th century, the two-number pronunciation generally starts with 1101 (eleven-oh-one). I guess the same will be the case with 2000 as with 1000, that people will say "two-thousand-and-x" until the next century starts and saying it as one number becomes cumbersome. Two-thousand-one-hundred-and-seventy-seven is a long word for a year. :p 84.215.150.196 (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Religious Holidays

Why are very random "neo-pagan" holidays mentioned, but not major holidays of the Jewish, Islamic, Hindu faiths? (or for that matter, why aren't all major religious holidays mentioned?) 198.137.20.52 (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Steve D

They're not mentioned because no one has gotten around to mentioning them yet. If you see something missing, feel free to add it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Will be / expected to be

Cosmic, no one knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that these years will take place because there in the future. You may not like that fact or strongly disagree with that fact, but its a fact. 'Is expect to be' is simply proper wording here. Furthermore, please don't rely on baseless logic like 'use commonsense' as your rationale for reversion. Cheers dude (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not "baseless logic"; it's official policy. See my response on the 2009 talk page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

One Tree Hill FastForward

Why isnt it listed in the "In fiction" section, that season 5 begins somewhat in 2011, although its not made clear the date of in the show, but it says 4 year fastforward. And 2007 + 4 = 2011. Either here or somehwat in 2012 (where it is also not listed), but in the "In Fiction" section of 2012 the fastforward of Desperate Housewives is mentioned. Now i dont have all my sources or whatever but i watch the show religiously. And have an estimate that season 5 happens 2011. So i think someone should add it. 71.68.21.115 (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Dec. 14

Laos isn't expected to invade Belgium, is it? And, even if it did, wouldn't it be stupid to announce the attack three years in advance? Of course, it is Laos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.21.32 (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Major religion's predicted date of the Second coming

Sorry, but what is the problem here, people?[1] A future date relevant to Messianic Judaism is certainly as notable as predictions about lacrosse championships, World Youth days, etc. (This isn't a made up religion, so it wouldn't go in fiction, imo.) -- 67.98.206.2 (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; Messianic Judaism doesn't establish it as the date, either. And it's not a major religion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
After looking at the Salon article; it would need to be in Messianic Judaism if it were s notable enough prediction. Our articles says some Messianic Jews.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hrmph. That's rather a WP:BUROratic demand. Just because Messianic Judaism#Eschatology doesn't mention the exact specific date (I wasn't aware whether or not it did) isn't much of rationale for not including it here. -- 67.98.206.2 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Not really; it's not a major religion, and Salon is not really definite that it's an accepted tenant tenet of that non-major religion. It might be notable as Chevlai shel Mashiach's opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
"Major religion" should have a number of believers worldwide. It seems fiddle-dee-dee for me that the orgainzation which claims itsself as "major religion" has only 6,000 believers, which is even less than 0.0001% of global population.--Belle Equipe (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


地上アナログ放送終了告知画面

Hey does this count as important? There is no English article about this, but it seems kind of big? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.254.252 (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


King James Bible

The year 2011 is the 400th anniversary of the publishing of the King James Version (of 1611). CPM - 04/27/05 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.108.106.51 (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2005 (UTC)

Anniversaries are not normally included here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Jupiter, Uranus

  • January 2 - Conjunction between Jupiter and Uranus, Jupiter 34' south. Third conjunction of triple conjunction Jupiter/Uranus.

- it's nonsense! --88.209.218.12 06:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's very much sense if you know about astronomy. 12.196.0.50 (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Well try putting it in simpler English for those unfortunate enough to not know as much as you. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Well actually it's not because it's jargony, this is very Twitterfied, telegraphese, SMS style English (or possibly a non-native English user). But it can be gleaned that it means this is the "third conjunction of a triple conjunction between two planets Jupiter and Uranus with (Jupiter?) 34 minutes of arc south of the other" (whether south is in ecliptic latitude, declination, or minimum seperation (and merely mentioning the general direction as a heads-up) is not said, and can be different, but can easily be looked up). In simple terms, that means how close the conjunction is often is different depending on whether you measure "like a racetrack" (perpendicular to the Solar System finish line - the race is infinite laps), "when one starts generally rising or setting later than the other" (exactly if you're on the Equator, average of the two everywhere else), or "get closest" (I made the terms in quotation marks up) – it can even pass by one measure and not at all by another (though closest is indisputable — a planet moving all the time, has to stop approaching at one point - even if it has to go in front of it to do so!). So someone has to look that up and clarify. 12.196.0.50 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Wow. I'm sure that's well intentioned, but it's certainly not "simpler"! What I'd suggest we need here is an article or part of an article elsewhere in Wikipedia, describing and explaining that event in detail, with the entry in this article being a Wikilink to the aforementioned more detailed explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Windows Vienna?

Wasn't it originally stated that Windows Vienna was scheduled to be released sometime this year? --99.154.3.9 (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Windows Vienna was later released in 2009 as Windows 7. Pcuser42 (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And in any case, a software release is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in a Year article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if im wrong this is just my theory

((2 to the 24) − 1) is the formula for bits to max integer computer dates start in 1980 2^24 = 16 777 216(-1)=16 777 215 16 777 215 minutes = 31.898953 years therefore 24bit computers will have stack overflows(very bad causes computer to pseudorandomly execute a line of code) to mess up accounting junk november 25th 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.117.37 (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be a bit late and an unnecessary explanation, but it's not a problem since no one uses 24 bit computers anymore. SheaF91 (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Only the FAT filesystem (and derivatives of it) start time at 1980, anyway, and FAT timestamps don't overflow until 2107... AnonMoos (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Kilogram

Why is the (perhaps speculative) redefinition of the kilogram worthy of note? (And why is the only source in German?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The only reason why this could be deemed "speculative" is that there are two methods competing for the redefinition. One is the Watt balance, the other is the Avogadro constant (counting atoms in a silicium ball). Each of these methods could be used to redefine the kilogram. It could also be both at the end of the day.
And, by the way, here's an English source for this topic. But it's already 2½ years old, therefore I didn't use it as a source. --bender235 (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
So the Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton is relevant, but the kilogram - arguably the most used unit of mass in the world, inventend almost three and a half centuries ago - ceasing to be the only International System of Units unit that is still defined by an artifact isn't? I'm guessing you're american (and indeed you are, apparently, from California).
You should read this. I'm removing the relevant? at the article - feel free to put it back if you must.
187.106.53.120 (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a very relevant entry. Americans have to become more aware of what the rest of the world does. (And what serious scientists in their own country do.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"local event"

how are the 9/11 attacks considered a "local event"? they had worldwide implications, did they not? --96.32.175.215 (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Who said the events of 9/11/2001 was a local event? ttonyb (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The edit summary for the edit that removed the entry for the "national 9/11 memorial". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011&diff=365032178&oldid=365032031 --96.32.175.215 (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
No one said that the 9/11/2001 attack was a local event; however, an opening of a memorial in the U.S. is a local event lacking international significance. I suggest you re-read the entry and the removal summary again. ttonyb (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
A memorial on the primary site of the 9/11 attacks which are not a local event, is a local event? Whatever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.175.215 (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

"Teen pop idol sentation,Justin Bieber's first movie,Never Say Never,comes out on February 14,2011."

^ Get rid of it, and ban the user who added it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.104.103 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from InsaneHusein, 31 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I added an event, Eurovision Song Contest 2011, but it was removed.

InsaneHusein (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

As per WP:RY the Eurovision Song Contest is insufficiently notable for inclusion in Year articles. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence

"2011 (MMXI) is a common year starting on Saturday in the Gregorian calendar and is the current year in Oceania, Asia, Europe, Africa, Uruguay and some parts of Brazil while 2010 is still ongoing in North America, some parts of South America and some other parts of Oceania, east of International Date Line. " - that is the most ridiculous open sentence I've ever seen! Do we really need a sentence which must be updated every hour for 25 continuous hours? -- Chuq (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No. It's all a bit tedious really. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Before it became the bane of my life, I was excited about time zones. If someone is willing to do the updating. let 'em go for it! HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect ordinals in second sentence

How can 2011 be "the tenth year of the 3rd millenium and of the 21st century" and "the first of [the] 2010s decade", when http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010 _made exactly the same claims for 2010_?  :-)

(OTOH, 2012 seems correct.) 69.95.232.94 (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Richard B. Woods

2011 Alexandria bombing

I've removed this, again, on the basis that terrorist bombings on this scale are not unusual internationally (and this is an international article) and larger bombings in previous Year articles have been removed for the same reason. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

UN observances

Paragraph 2 states, "The United Nations has designated 2011 the International Year of Forests and International Year of Chemistry.[1]" Following the source tells us that this is true, but also that 2011 is the International Year for People of African Descent. I think this should be added. 05:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)(talk)

When there is an International Year for People of African Descent it can be included here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
That is not how Wikipedia works. Concepts do not need articles of their own to be mentioned. Excluding all mention of topics that do not yet have articles throttles Wikipedia's growth and reduces its utility unnecessarily. Besides, redlinks to topics that are notable enough to deserve articles but do not yet exist are not the enemy. Therefore, I have added this. -kotra (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It's the way Year articles work!'DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This was agreed to by consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Recent years for year articles guidelines. ttonyb (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen that guideline already. It doesn't make a lot of sense. If the designation can be reliable sourced as an official UN designation, that should be enough to show it is notable enough for inclusion as a mention. Does that mean it is notable enough to have its own article? Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't matter, because being notable enough to deserve a mention isn't the same as being notable enough to deserve an article. If we look at any Good Article we will find plenty of concepts, people, things, etc in WP that are mentioned, and rightly so, but do not meet notability guidelines for an article of their own. I don't mean to use an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, I'm just trying to demonstrate that this is an accepted practice in WP, except here. Perhaps I should be asking this at WT:Recent years instead of here, but why are years different? -kotra (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Why not just create the article? Is that really so diffucult? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
My point is that less experienced editors like the one above should not be required to learn how to create a lasting article that meets Wikipedia's increasingly strict guidelines and survives the deletion gauntlet (not a simple task!) in order to add a brief mention with a reliable source supporting it. I know how tempting it is to use the existence of an article as a metric for inclusion elsewhere, as I have done it in the past (though never as an essential criterion, as citing reliable sources asserting notability was also valid), but it is a flawed metric that, instead of encouraging growth and greater utility of the project, usually discourages it. Your question does not answer mine, however. Why does this rule exist for year articles when it goes against standard practice throughout Wikipedia? -kotra (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Because Year articles were, and in some cases still are, prone to having large amounts of non-notable material included in them, so much so that 2008 had exceeded the recommended maximum size for an article by June. This led to the creation of the guidelines at WP:RY. I would think it is farily obvious that for something to be included in a Year article it would need to be internationally significant for that year. One indiciation of significance would be that an article on that subject be created. In this case I doubt that a UN Year of anything article would be speedy deleted if there was a single reference (and there must be otherwise how would any know about it?). And if that article couldn't survive Afd then it would seem that it wouldn't deserve inclusion here (but really it should survive Afd). Considering the number of articles about complete trivia that are allowed to stand in wiki, even an inexperienced editor should be able to create a worthy stub article for International Year for People of African Descent. The reason there is a guideline for Recent Year articles is that they post-date the start of wiki and include a lot of, at the time, current material. One only has to look back to before 2005 to find that the Year articles start to get smaller and yet some still continue large amounts of non-internationally notable entries, most of which should be in Year in Topic or Year in Country articles. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Football

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the 2011 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship starts June 11 2011? 62.107.90.143 (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not notable enough. As per WP:RY the only sporting events that are notable enough for inclusion in Year articles are the Olympics and World Cup. All other sports could be included in e.g. 2011 in sports. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Kilogram

This page says that "a new definition of the kilogram, based on universal constants, is likely to be announced at the 24th General Conference on Weights and Measures." However, according to the website of the conference, "the CIPM does not propose a revision of the SI at the present time". 83.84.195.88 (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell from a cursory glance at the web page, when they say "present time", they mean the meeting in 2010, as it seems that the writing from which the quote was taken was notes from the 2010 meeting. This year will be the 2011 meeting and apparently they are planning to redefine the kilogram during this year's meeting. SheaF91 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The page talks in the past tense about the 2010 meeting ("A key activity of the 2010 CIPM meeting was"). The way I read it, the CIPM does not currently (i.e. in 2011) propose a revision of the kilogram. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Assassination of Salman Taseer

Here is why this fact is internationally notable:

Congruence (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The assassination of a local politician is not rare. That this made slightly more news than most makes it news but not internationally notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Assassinations of local politicians do not generally get worldwide coverage or international condemnation. In addition he is not mayor of a small village but governor of a province in a very sensitive region and his murder was ideologically motivated; therefore this event is highly relevant. Congruence (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And according to Agence France Presse: "Il s'agit du crime politique le plus important au Pakistan depuis la mort en décembre 2007 de l'ancien Premier ministre Benazir Bhutto, tuée dans un attentat suicide attribué aux talibans." i.e. "this is the most important political crime in Pakistan since Benazir Bhutto's murder". See here. Congruence (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, assassinations of local politicians do generally get worldwide coverage, unless in an area in which assassinations are common. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sex with robots? wtf?

"Humans will be having sex with robots by 2011, according to the European Robotics Research Network (Harper's Magazine September 2006) "

how is that possible!!!! o.O--EliteMike 05:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be possible if android technology is made possible by then. But even still, it's a stretch. --99.154.3.9 (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it any more than an improvement on blow-up dolls? HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Blow-up dolls wouldn't have pre-programmed movements or personality, like a robot might. Regardless, this poster doesn't see that prediction coming true this year or even within the next ten years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheaF91 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the sad fact is such robots are already available, and quite expensive. I'd have to dig around for a link (no I haven't seen one in person and I certainly don't want to own one myself) but they do already exist. They can be programmed to converse with their owner and to remember what they like, but they don't do much else except lie there and get penetrated. I guess it's better than getting herpes from some crackhead streetwalker, but not by much.Beeblebrox (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Here it is: prepare to be disturbed. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

2010–2011 Queensland floods

2010–2011 Queensland floods should be inclueded as an event —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.171.210 (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be notable enough, and is an event really only restricted to Australia. If prior disasters worldwide seem to be precedent, it's only because they had a strong international response (like with the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, 2010 Haiti earthquake or 2010 Pakistan floods). SheaF91 (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Cricket World Cup

A global event, only takes place every four years and not notable enough for this page, ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.175.99 (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Cricket is not a global sport, it is only important to relatively few countries. It belongs in 2011 in sports. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
So which World Cups are notable enough for inclusion, out of curiosity? The FIFA World Cup, of course, but any others? SheaF91 (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This would seem to be exactly the kind of event that should be in this article. It involves 14 nations and games will be played in three different countries. (Should have been four but games in Pakistan were moved elsewhere because of security concerns.) In fact, another 31 nations played off to gain places in this competition. So, 45 countries all together. The 2011 Cricket World Cup article will tell you all about it. It's a genuine international event. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
As per WP:RY the only sporting events considered sufficently notable for incluion in Recent Year articles are the Olympic Games and the FIFA world cup. There are too many events at the next level down (cricket is at least one more level down) in terms of global importance to be included. There are Year in sports articles for these events. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Computer games

Why do we have a sub-title "Computer and video games" for a year section? Especially as it lists absolutely no games released in 2011? Antonyh3 (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I would assume that is reserved for major advancements in those fields, should any occur this year. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It's reserved for games set in 2011. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Really? That seems kind of... well... stupid and inconsistent. We have these high standards for inclusion in other areas of the article, but any video game set in 2011 gets added? Do you happen to know where and when that decision was made? I'd be interested in re-addressing the issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It's an old section that has never been addressed for notability. Personally I think it should be removed as being trivial rather than notable. Rhe same goes for single television episodes (at least). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't imagine anyone coming to the page on a year because they want to now what video games were set in said year. Seems like information suited for a brief mention in the article on the game itself at most. I definitely think it is time to re-examine having such a section, I guess WP:RY would be the place to do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree strongly with that. I cannot imagine a paper encyclopaedia having such a section. The only reason it's here is that we are using computers as the medium, and so attract a sizable proportion of computer game aficionados. Given the effort we put into keeping other trivial info out of this article, the presence of this section is inexplicable. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If the three of us are so easily agreeing to this there must be something to it. I've opened a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Recent years#Video games section to address this issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

R. Sargent Shriver

of the list of people who have died this year he not only belongs on the list of World-class obits but i dont think any of the others on there even measure up to him so i guess this is an issue of administrative requirements that will ultimately get settled in the future ... i mean REALLY jerry rafferty (rock singer famous for one song) gets an obit and picture and not R. Sargent Shriver founder of the WORLD Peace Corps !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.171.210 (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

From Peace Corps: "The Peace Corps is an American volunteer program run by the United States Government". Not the WORLD Peace Corps. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, it is run by the U.S. but it operates all over the world. You're both a little bit right. Over 20,000 Peace Corps volunteers have worked in 139 countries over the last fifty years. What the Peace Corps does and what it represents in more or less unprecedented in human history. Here are citizens of the United States, by most metrics the most powerful and influential nation on earth, going out and attempting to assist less developed nations by improving living conditions and fostering economic development instead of pillaging and plundering and leaving when all the resources have been bought up or stolen for export. And they don't get paid one red cent for two years of work. If that isn't internationally significant I don't know what is, and Shriver was the first man to head the agency. List him already. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Please don't tell me I'm a little bit right. I was 100% right. All I did was quote 100% accurately from another Wikipedia article to highlight that the name used by our IP editor was inaccurate and perhaps a tad arrogant. I could perhaps be convinced of Shriver's right to be mentioned, but not by the style of argument so far used here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

i had him listed and it got pulled —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.171.210 (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

He fails the minimum criteria at WP:RY and there is no convincing reason to make him an exception. His foreign language articles do not indicate that he is internationally notable. They are all clones of the English one, most are barely more than stubs, some have no citations and those that do only use the English ones not their own language. The Peace Corps might be internationally notable, being a member of it does not make that person internationally notable. Simply, he is notable in the US, nowhere else. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
He was not merely a member, he was the first head of the Corps and largely responsible for making it what it is today. I'm sorry if I offended you HiLo, I was trying to be equitable in my reply. Of course the Corps is an American institution and the volunteers are American citizens, I was just trying to make the point that it operates all over the world and therefore Shriver's influence as it's first director has been felt all over the world, whether the editors of the foreign language Wikipedia projects are aware of it or not. Recentism is a systemic problem on most if not all Wikipedia projects, and he hadn't been in the spotlight much since announcing he had Alzheimer's disease seven years ago. We shouldn't let that diminish the significance of his legacy to not only the United States but the people around the globe who have benefited from the efforts of the Peace Corps. I admit this is a new area for me and I'm not really familiar with the RY criteria, but by my reading it seems to say if there are ten articles on other WP projects they meet the minimum standard. He has eleven,(same number as the apparently unchallenged Anne Francis, some of which are extremely brief) so that's not an automatic fail as DerbyCountyNZ suggests. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I was not in error, when he died there were only 8 foreign language articles. Dying does not make someone more notable, not enough for inclusion in a Recent Year article anyway. The fact that those 3 countries didn't think he was important enough to have an article merely reinforces the point that he was not notable outside the US. None of those articles uses a local language citation, they merely clone bits of the English article copy he English citations, or use none at all. Your arguments seem very POV and push the notability of the Peace Corps, but notability is not transferred. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any provision in the guideline you cited that specifies when the foreign language articles should have been written or what language the sources should be in. Arguments on talk pages are perfectly free to have a point of view, it's the article content that must remain neutral. I admit I surprise myself with the veracity with which I am advocating for his inclusion but you are misapplying WP:NPOV by referncing it in such a manner. You made the comment about failing the RY criteria just over an hour ago. Did those three articles get created within the last hour? If anything that would reinforce the contention that he was notable and that his death was noted internationally. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
You are right there is nothing in the guidelines about when the foreign articles should be written. I in fact tried to get the guidelines amended to "9 non-English articles at the time of death", with of course the proviso that exceptions could always be made. Unfortunately due to the zealousness, bordering on paranoia, of one editor whose only interest was in retaining someone in the Deaths section who was CLEARLY not notable and only got included because of a canvassed block vote (proving that allowing consensus to override basic common sense isn't such a great idea), that amendment was not made. It would have made the vain attempt of one user to create 4 or 5 non-English article just so someone would meet the minimum criteria even more pointless. Be that as it may, it still seems to me that anyone who is not thought of as sufficently notable to deserve an article in so many languages until someone realises they have died cannot be considered sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article. If any non-English article can't even finda report in their local language it would also indicate that the country(s) where that langage is spoken don't consider that person to be particularly notable. Of all the non-English articles only one (french, 2 out of about 20 ) has any citations in the local language (at the time of writing!). I would have though someone who was genuinely internationally notable would have greater international coverage. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The sad fact seems to be that the criterion used bias the selection in favor of pop-culture. We have actors, pop singers, authors and football players getting right in unchallenged while a man who made a real difference to thousands of lives in over a hundred countries is aggressively challenged. And on top of all that it seems DerbyCounty would have us follow his proposed changes to the criterion, which apparently failed to gain support. It's clear from the above post that I have stumbled into a bigger fight on a larger issue and that Shriver is being used as a test case to try and end-run the previous decision. Why pick on him when pop singers and sports figures get a free pass with the same number and quality of articles across multiple Wikipedias? I think I may know the answer to that but I'll hold my tongue for the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, it is not the criteria that is biased, it is the bias of Wikipedia editors that creates the "actors, pop singers, authors and football players" articles that populate Wikipedia. Remember Wikipedia is not about truth or "real-world" importance, but about verifiability. ttonyb (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to guess at your unspoken theory. I said earlier "I could perhaps be convinced of Shriver's right to be mentioned, but not by the style of argument so far used here." We were confronted with what looked to me like classic American arrogance. It read like "I think it's important to the whole world. America did everyone else a favour." It was exactly the kind of behaviour that got the Peace Corps bad press from time to time. A more civil approach may have achieved a lot. Right now, because of what's gone before, you need a perfect case to convince me.
As for the alleged pop culture bias, it's always a much safer area than politicians. Inevitably the latter will have supporters and enemies. It's the nature of that role. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It is unfortunately true that pop culture takes up more space that more important items in wikipedia (it only takes a few fans of a trivial subject to flood wiki with relatively unimportant articles) and this is also unfortunately prevalent when it comes to Deaths in Year articles. If it is agreed that not every death can be included (for reasons of space and actual notability) thens hort of having this sort of discussion every time a death is added some form of criteria is required to weed out the less notable. At present the consensus at WP:RY, achieved after some deliberation, is to base international notability on the number of foreign language articles. This isn't entirely satisfactory as even minor "celebrities" can meet the requirement while genuinely important scientists may not. Even state leaders can have very few articles if they have been out of office for more than 10 years. If anyone has a better criteria for establishing a minimum level of notability (remembering that this is article reflects international notability) I'd be glad to hear it! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
So, we agree the criteria are flawed, but it seems we also agree that Shriver meets the letter of said criteria as currently written. And now HiLo has made it clear that their objections were in part based on the fact that he was an American. I don't see any remaining valid arguments against including Shriver. In the absence of a sudden drastic change to the criteria I move that Shriver be added to the list promptly. To do otherwise would be patently unfair as he has the same breadth and depth of coverage as many of the pop culture personalities already on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The 9 non-English articles is a minimum only, not the only criteria. Arguments against inclusion of anyone meeting the minimum can still be made here (as they can for the inclusion of someone that fails to meet the criteria). This has happened numerous times in previous Year articles. There is still no convincing evidence that Shriver is sufficiently internationally notable. Including him to "balance out" the preponderence of pop culture people in the Deaths sections is not a valid reason for inclsusion. If you feel that anyone currently in the Deaths sections should not be there start a separate discussion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not quite what I meant. The argument put forward by HiLo is essentially that HiLo doesn't like American dominance of world culture and is requiring a higher standard for Shriver specifically because they do not like "American arrogance." That is obviously not a valid argument. Your argument was that he does not meet the criterion, which you have now admitted he does. Now you are altering that argument to say that he is not notable despite meeting the criteria. My contention is that no matter what it is he was notable for he was equally notable and has the same type of coverage in multiple Wikipedias as the other listed deaths, possibly more than several of them. I agree with you that whether he was known for being a politician and director of the Peace Corps or was known for playing football, writing a book, or doing a bad impersonation of Bob Dylan is not relevant. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
American Deaths do not require a higher standard than anyone else, but they don't require a lower standard either. I have used exactly the same arguments against the inclusion of other Deaths in previous years regardless of country. And I have not altered my argument. I wrote in my first comment that he was not notable because not only did he not meet the minimum criteria (at that point) but also that his existing foreign articles did not indicate that he was sufficiently notable. If the existing foreign language articles had indicated he was notable it would have made a good case for his inclusion despite not meeting the minimum requirement. In fact you are the one who seems to be claiming that because he now meets the minimum criteria (which we both agree is flawed) that should be sufficient, or at least a major point on the plus side, to include him! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I feel like we are at an impasse on this issue and more previously uninvolved voices might help us to find some consensus. I'll see if I can find some neutral way to seek more input. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

How many english-articles does Shriver have currently? GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem I had here with American culture was when a presumably American fan of Shriver and the Peace Corps described it as the WORLD Peace Corps (his caps), then abused me for pointing out the truth. Yes, I did see the now deleted abusive post. (It's in the history if people still want to see what kind of people make up Shriver's groupies.) I was also told by someone else I was half right when all I had done was quote the Peace Corps article. Yes, I did react negatively. Attempts at dominance and bullying do lead to that sort of thing. Shriver could do with some nicer supporters. Once such crap occurs, the rest of the arguments in his favour need to be flawless. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If Shriver doesn't meet the entry criteria? then he shouldn't be entered. Otherwise, seek consensus for changing or abolish current entry criteria. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The criteria is (emphasis is mine):

[Deaths] are only to be included if there are Wikipedia articles in at least ten languages about the individual in question...This is a minimum requirement for unexplained inclusion. Although inclusion may then be automatic, it will not necessarily be permanent. Any entry may be contested by any editor who finds the entry undue; and, pending discussion, many names might not merit inclusion, even if they have enough non-English articles.

Shriver did not meet the minimum criteria at the start of this discussion. Although he now meets the minimum criteria he should not be included unless/until the consensus here is to include him. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
He now meets the critera? I assume since his death, he's had articles recently created on other language Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • HiLo, could I ask you to please calm down and look at this more logically? Some ip made a somewhat uninformed post where they said "WORLD peace corps," that is true. That does not mean that any and all arguments made in the future on the topic have to be "flawless." I never expected to get such a harsh reaction from my statement that you were both a little bit right. I was trying to calm things down and be accommodating, but apparently in your mind once a poor argument is made no amount of proper logical argument can overcome it. That may be how you feel but it is not supported by any policy, guideline, or simple common sense. I'm sure you can see that, let's start over from square one and not let nationalistic feelings cloud the issue.
  • @GoodDay: DerbyCounty keeps repeating the assertion that he did not meet the criteria when he first posted, but if you look at the timestamps he admitted just over an hour later that he did. I'm not sure what that means, I haven't checked the timestamps on the various foreign articles to see exactly what moment they were created at because it doesn't seem relevant, but it is either an error or the several new articles appeared on various Wikipedias in less than hour. We seem to be going around in circles on the issue so I'm glad there is someone else here to give some new input.
  • To summarize: It is my opinion that he meets the criteria and exceeds the coverage of several others already listed, that he has had a measurable impact on world affairs having been not just the original director of the Peace Corps but also Ambassador to France, a one time candidate for Vice President, was heavily involved along with his wife in the founding of the Special Olympics (an internationally notable organization, of which his son is still CEO), and was architect of the War on Poverty. It is my contention that the main reason he is somewhat under-represented on the various Wikipedia projects is that he spent the last seven years of his life in relative obscurity, having developed Alzheimer's Disease, so many of the relevant sources in both English and foreign languages are not going to be available online. Nevertheless he does meet the letter of the criteria and undeniably was known outside of just the U.S.Beeblebrox (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Beeblebrox - I wasn't "a little bit right" as your post said. I was completely, 100% right. It was an exact quote from the Peace Corps article. That you can't see any error there, or cause for offence, is kinda sad. And that IP did a lot more than what you now (thankfully) see in the thread. A little humility would go a long way here.
However, your comments on Shriver's achievements make a strong case. I've looked at his article (which should probably have played a bigger part in these discussions), and I do see some notable international work. Unfortunately he needed some international achievement to negate his earlier involvement in the overtly anti-international America First Committee. That's the problem with politicians. They go around seeking attention for everything they do, and it's very rare that all their actions end up being good ones. On balance, I would probably see him having an entry in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you are willing to look at the matter afresh. As I apologized for any offense that remark caused you right away and explained that I was just trying to smooth out the situation it's hard to understand why we are still talking about it. I don't know how much more humility than a polite explanation and a written apology you would like. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Enthusiasm seems to have dried up at the Rfc (below). GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Gerry Rafferty picture

Could someone please sort his picture back to the right place? Zenon2011 (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC) his picture will look like that till there is enough room .... prey for more deaths so your rock god can fit in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Neptune's orbit

Small dispute here. Neptune was discovered 9/23/1846, and its orbit is 164 years and 288 days long (in earth days/years). By simple addition, that would put its "discovery birthday" on Friday July 8, 2011. However, there are several citations that disagree, and state that it will be on July 12. Does anybody have any insight into this? Randy_Seltzer (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Neptune infobox reports the orbital period is 60,190 days. 1846-23-09 + 60190 appears to be 2011-07-10. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Possibly it's temporarily slow or fast from the long-term average because of outer planet perturbations? Also, even Earth's year is slowly changing. JPL's Horizons website should give the best-known current value with margins of error. 12.196.0.50 (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the date of Neptune's "anniversary" to 12 July, this is to match the Horizons data given in the references. and also it now ties in with the date given on Neptune's own wikipedia article. - Richard 00:20 19 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.19.214 (talk)

This and almost all the other astronomy/space related entries hardly qualify as sufficiently notable for this, or any, Year article. Simialr entries from recent years have largely been removed. They belong instead in 2011 in science (or 2011 in Astronomy if that existed) and 2011 in spaceflight. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think it's cool there's still a planet that hasn't been around once since being discovered despite the fact it happened almost 200 years ago. This is the last one, as Pluto is not a planet anymore.
The above is just a dispute of the exact date which should be safely left to others if it's not your tea. 12.196.0.50 (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

American usage of Holiday - Wrong for other readers

The Holiday article makes it clear that English language usage of the word holiday varies dramatically across the world. These year articles use the US version with no explanation for those from other regions. For example, in Australia (and in other places), a holiday is always a day away from normal work or school. Days like Chinese New Year and Ash Wednesday are not holidays, so the article is simply wrong for those readers.

Yes, I know this format is used in every year article. That just makes it wrong in every article. I don't know if this matter has been raised before, but I thought the start of a new year would be a great time to discuss it. If there's a better, more global place to address it, please let me know. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I know it's a quiet time and a lot of editors have, ironically, been on holidays, but I'll see if this update wakes up any interest via the watchlist of any editors. If not, I'll drop it for now. HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
What would you suggest is used in its place? SheaF91 (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest Major commemorations. HiLo48 (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This has now become an active issue because User:Ttonyb1 has just "Removed non-holidays", according to his Edit summary. Those he removed were Valentines Day and St Patrick's Day. I agree with that action, but it still leaves at least six commemorative days there which are observed in my country but NEVER described as holidays. Is there a policy that applies here? HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have also now realised that this seems to have only occured for 2010 and 2011, and there is a guideline being not properly followed. Please go to Wikipedia Talk:Recent years#"Major religious holidays" has turned into "Major holidays" for further discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton

Is really a significance for a worldwide event such as major royal wedding in European monarchies? ApprenticeFan work 00:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe it is a significant event. ttonyb (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Not really internationally significant, can't really think that any wedding would be. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
As an Australian republican (that's nothing like an American Republican) I almost hate myself for having to write this, but William is the future king and head of state of a whole bunch of Commonwealth nations. He is therefore a very significant person. His marriage will likely deliver us the next monarch. (That's if we republicans don't get our way.) It is important. On another slant, it's an interesting commentary on world affairs that anyone suggests that this isn't important. Fifty years ago there have been no question whatsoever. (Hmmm. Maybe we republicans ARE getting somewhere.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a wedding. It's predictable. It's not rare. Unlike the death of a state leader it changes nothing internationally. Basically, it's just NEWS. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
At a personal level, I completely agree with you, but I do think you need to address those points related to Wills' royal position. Some will want you to show appropriate respect for your future Queen Kate. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Just thought I might point out that the wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, to Lady Diana Spencer, is listed under events of 1981. It is also apparent, however, that year articles from those days are considerably more...western-centric than today (the Super Bowl results and Academy-Awards are listed in the article as well). Just prompting some discussion here. I am of the opinion that the wedding should be listed in this article, if only because over a billion people worldwide will be watching it (hey, if the 1981 wedding can get 750 million views, then my number is probably conservative) and for all of that other "world-changey" stuff. SheaF91 (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The standards of notablilty are generally less strictly applied the earlier the years are, largely because there aren't many people with the interest or the time to apply them. That doesn't justify slackening the standards for recent articles. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I still don't think you have addressed the points I have made about this not being an ordinary wedding. This couple are likely to be King and Queen of 16 nations. (And that's counting the UK as just one.) Their first born son will be the next king. (Yes, I know there's no certainty to this stuff, but it would appear the most likely path.) And a more recent, highly relevant example would have to be "Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark, marries Australian Mary Donaldson in Copenhagen" on May 14 in the 2004 article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I wonder how they would feel if someone told them that there were arguments online over listing their marriage on this page... SheaF91 (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh well. One of them can always pop on here and let us know whether it's important or not. HiLo48 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course it is internationally significant and should be included. It will be a national holiday in the UK and will be covered by the media worldwide. The latter in itself makes it worthy of inclusion. I'm beginning to wonder what planet I've strayed onto. Deb (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
People around the world will watch this on TV, just as they did when Charles and Diana were married, but what real impact will it have? Lest we forget Prince Chartles is still alive and well, he is next in line for the throne. I suppose it is a notable event in that it will be watched by a lot of people, but it is not going to cause any real change in the governance of the Commonwealth. Their hypothetical first born son might be the King in sixty or seventy years. If and when he is whoever is left alive can write it up in the article for 2081. I know it's more or less inevitable that it will end up being included, but let's not make it out to be some earth shattering event of great import, it's just a spectacle that people enjoy watching. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
But that's an argument that could be made against almost every event that's ever been listed in a year article. At that rate they'd all be empty! :-) Deb (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how. A disaster or a war is an event that changes lives in a real, substantive way. An economic event, an important discovery, or a sweeping political change can also. The wedding of a prince in a royal family that no longer actually rules anything does not. The fact that lots of people enjoy watching such a spectacle is granted, but the idea that it actually changes anything in the lives of the citizens of the UK and/or the Commonwealth nations is specious. And lest we yet again descend into bashing Americans I would also mention that millions upon millions of Americans will be among those who watch the wedding. I fully expect parties at local bars even here in small town Alaska. I still remember Charles and Diane's wedding being on pretty much every channel (only had four back then) and robbing me of my cartoons when I was a boy. Wait, I guess it did impact my life because I didn't get to watch Tom and Jerry or Popeye that afternoon. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

2010–2011 Tunisian uprising

Whoopdee doo it's time for another round of "This is why this is notable... no this is why this is not notable" on a year article. Firstly, I'm sorry if my little blurb that was so kindly removed is POV but on the actual president's page you can see international bodies support the statement "considered one of the most corrupt", secondly popular uprisings that displace governments are ALWAYS relevant on an international scale as they generally do result in some long lasting change for a society in one way or another. Thus is why they should be included, as it is a momentus moment in Tunisian history. I am also of the opinion that OUTSTANDING events in any nation's history should be reason for inclusion on this article, and this certainly meets the criteria. Thus I am calling upon editors who so disagree to come together and lets have an honest discussion about how we can clean up that sentence and re-add it to the article. --Kuzwa (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What other government's think/thought of the President is irrelevant. Presidents leave their office for any number of reasons. There was no international involvement in the Tunisian President's departure, it was an entirely local event. Scheduled changes of president are not normally included in Year articles, no reason to include an unscheduled change just because it's significant in that country. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Under your logic every revolution in 1989 would be considered irrelevant. The fact is that sometimes national events are notable simply because they are NATIONAL EVENTS. The change in government in Tunisia is far more significant than per say who is presiding over the European Union this year. As under your logic, the European Union is only relevant to the region of Europe and is not relevant on a greater international scale. There is simply no harm in adding this event, regardless of everyone who says to the contrary. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The revolutions of 1989 were relevant because they signaled the end of the Cold War and Soviet communism; the protests in Tunisia are, in all likelihood, signalling only a political shift within the Tunisian government. Also, the European Union is an international political body, and thus any change to its administration is considered relevant. Just thought I should make those points clear first.
The argument here seems to be that if the magnitude of the significance of an event, isolated to one country, is great enough, then it doesn't matter if that event is limited to one country. This may be true; I certainly have seen, in recent year articles, largely important events that were limited to one country. The fact remains, however, that these events must be sufficiently important, and the argument that Derby has made (and which I support) is that the Tunisian protests are not. SheaF91 (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I have an issue with the determination of magnitude. The fact that the Tunisian events may seem relatively unimportant to the average American (for example) does not mean they are to the average Tunisian. The fact that the riots could alter the very hierarchy of Tunisian society is mindboggling. For Tunisian history this is a MOMENTOUS event and as it is probably one of the foremost events in that country it should be listed on this article. Honestly how many mentions of Tunisia do we have on year pages anyways. --Kuzwa (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Simply because Wikipedia does not often mention the nation of Tunisia on year articles does not mean that we need to do so now to compensate. Also, you make mention that "the riots COULD alter the very hierarchy of Tunisian society", which I will point out is not the same as saying it WILL. We can not be certain of the outcome of these protests, whether the country's new leadership will make Tunisia into a shining beacon of democracy, or just a better governed country, or (hopefully not) just as corrupt as before. This seems to come under WP:FUTURE, if I'm correct. SheaF91 (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I have a compromise, since the unrest in Tunisia is still ongoing, I suggest we just put only what has happened, I mean it is very significant that someone who led the country from 23 years was overthrown.

let me know when this dictator overthow spreads to qaddafi ... then it will be notable as the first and thereby trendworthy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.171.210 (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we put Tunisia after one month. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It is has proven to have had an international impact, then that would be an appropriate measure. SheaF91 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I can tell you that before last week you would be hard pressed to find any news reports about Tunisia in the U.S. national media. By contrast, it's been a daily story for nearly two weeks now on most major news outlets. What actual impact it will have on the international community is somewhat obscure but it has certainly been noticed around the globe. It is specious to compare a coup/peoples revolution to a normal, expected change in the head of state. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
What happened was a regime change, this is very significant since an autocratic ruler in the Arab world was toppled by protests. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it would appear the international impact of the Tunisian protests is growing; it seems to have spurred a new series of protests recently throughout the Middle East by people hoping to replicate the success of the Tunisian revolution. Given this new development, I would be willing to include Tunisia in the list of events. Where, though, might it be placed? The date the protests started (in 2010), or the date that Ben Ali left office (in 2011)? SheaF91 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this event is beginning to get felt in the wider region (mostly Egypt, lately), so yes, I'm also leaning towards inclusion. How about this year's entry along the lines of "The 2010–2011 Tunisian uprising culminates in ousting of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, and is followed by anti-government protests in other North-African countries"? — Yerpo Eh? 10:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
It's getting closer to being internatonally notable, but it's not there yet. Is there any evidence that the protests are linked, or are they just coincidence? Anti-government protests are not uncommon. Unless there is a causal link, and maybe another government falls, I still don't think it's much more than any other protests. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
It's far from coincidence. Both governments have been in power for decades, and they aren't the only two - Algeria, Yemen and other countries have also been experiencing unrest in recent weeks. See [2], for example. BTW, mass protests are not only uncommon, but virtually inexistent in Egypt, which is technically a police state with permanent emergency laws in effect. — Yerpo Eh? 18:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Do these protests then justify an article of their own e.g 2011 North African uprisings? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they do. Though I'm not sure what the acceptable name for them is as they are occurring in Yemen, Jordan and Albania as well. I believe there is an article which is beginning to encompass them but I forget it's name at the moment. This event is pretty much the Autumn of Nations for the Arab world. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
2010–2011 Arab World protests is the multinational article. It's still just a stub. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
So... it will be expanded. The fact still stands that each country's independent revolt is internationally notable. So I'm just going to be bold and start adding these protests are clearly notable. Even if they do not turn out to be successful. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
No, each country's revolt is not internationally notable, they may only be internationally notable collectively, and that is not conclusive, yet. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Whatever, this inclusionist vs. minimalist debate is probably as entrenched as conservatism vs. liberalism. --Kuzwa (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's THAT entrenched...SheaF91 (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree that they should be included. What started out as a movement in Tunisia is now threatening to topple the government of Egypt, and possibly Yemen as well. The whole Arab world may be on the brink of massive changes. It is ridiculous to continue to argue that these are not internationally notable events. They undeniably have been noted around the world, and as the Tunisian movement sparked the Egyptian and Yemenese movements there is clearly a broad international impact. If this had started in Sweden and spread to Italy and Austria we wouldn't be having this conversation. Systemic bias should not be allowed to diminish the clear and evident international impact of these events. It seems to me insane that anyone could argue that a British royal wedding has obvious international notability but the toppling of a government and the distinct possibility of two more falling as part of the same movement is not. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, be careful with the sweeping comparisons. I have argued for inclusion of the royal wedding (I still do), and now, commenting on this issue for the first time, will argue for it's inclusion too. Both events, though of very different flavours, are far more international than a American politician being shot but not killed by one of her countrymen, in her own country. HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't trying to call you out specifically, its just that it seemed that got consensus so easily while this much more important event with obvious international repercussions that is headline news all around the world keeps getting removed from the article because a few people are still arguing that it is not important enough or not international enough even though it is patently obvious that the Tunisian uprising inspired the mass protests in Egypt and elsewhere that are still ongoing. I don't care for all the America-bashing but I do agree the Tuscon incident, while shocking, will not have much international impact. Arizona is full of maniacs with guns, it is notoriously easy to get them there. (of course I live in Alaska, where anyone with state-issued identification who is not a convicted felon is free to carry a concealed firearm so I can't really criticize, but we have bears running around up here.) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The article 2010–2011 Arab world protests is now substantial enough to be used as a link for these incidents. I suggest something along the lines of:
Assuming there is now consensus...DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
It appears we do have at least a rough consensus to add it, but I'm not sure about your proposed language as it assumes other governments will fall. It does seem likely but it hasn't quite happened yet. I think that can be easily rectified thusly:
Sound good? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes. --Kuzwa (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done except I corrected it to January... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Resolved
 – Their appears to be a consensus that he be included. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment is requested on the following issue:

  • Should Sargent Shriver be listed as one of the notable deaths of 2011?
  • Previous discussion on the subject is visible a few sections above but failed to reach a consensus. There appears to be broad agreement that he meets the minimum requirements at WP:RY but clearing that hurdle is not considered an automatic pass to inclusion if any user should object. Any and all comments are welcome, especially from previously uninvolved users. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion if he meets the minimun requirement. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
According to WP:RY the minimum requirement is "Wikipedia articles in at least ten languages about the individual in question." Including the one here there are 12. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support He does meet the minimum foreign language requirement. Just because he was an American doesn't mean that it is US-centric to put his death here, which some people seemed to object to earlier. The man did have an internation impact: he was the first director of the Peace Corps (which although founded by Americans, does operate worldwide), he was an Ambassador to France, and also served as President of the Special Olympics. Just because he faded into obscurity into recent years due to old age/Alzheimer's, doesn't mean that we shouldn't recognize him for everything he did in his earlier life. Bcperson89 (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a misrepresentation of what was said in the thread above. Some of those supporting Shriver's case created a straw man which did not represent the comments of those concerned about his eligibility. I will also point out that not all comments from his supporters are on display. Offensive material supporting Shriver's case has been removed. This wasn't an anti-American thing. It was an anti-non-American thing by Shriver fans. Also, The Peace Corps is not world wide. That is an arrogance. There are many countries, including mine, where it has never been active. And it's actions have not always been universally welcomed by its "recipients". HiLo48 (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
To say they operate around the world does not mean or even imply a presence in every last country. Australia already has its own infrastructure and close ties with many other developed nations so it wouldn't really need a Peace Corps mission to assist with such things. I would add that although it is certainly true that the Peace Corps has not always been entirely welcome or appreciated in some corners that does not affect notability one bit, except to perhaps add to it. You may catch more flies with honey than vinegar, but as far as media coverage is concerned you get more of it when things go badly than when they go according to plan. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The foregin langauge article do not adequately reflect international notability. Virtually no local language reports, mostly clearly clones of the English article. A genuinely international person would not only have had more articles before his death encouraged the creation of more articles, but those articles would reflect more local input. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support per all my comments in the previous discussion up the page. Meets the minimum requirements, was involved in international diplomacy, and founded not one but two very notable international organizations, the Peace Corps and the Special Olympics, that are still active today in addition to being a candidate for Vice President, and finally all the programs he was involved with just in the U.S. that are also still active today such as Head Start and VISTA. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, please get these things right. You're not helping the case. He did not found Special Olympics. He was President of its managing body for a while. His wife had more to do with its creation, but that was much earlier. His contribution was still, of course, very valuable. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. He meets the minimum requirement now, but didn't as of his death. He does not qualify for the (not yet codified) head-of-state exception to the requirement. I can't read most of the languages, but many of the "foreign language" articles are in English, so really shouldn't be counted as "foreign language articles".
  • Weak support. I wouldn't have any problems with including him on the list. He just makes it, though, in my opinion. SheaF91 (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Anyone whose death is notable enough to be featured on the Main Page definitely should be included in the year entry.SPNic (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support if meets following: If he meets criteria for inclusion, which by policy he does, then I would be in support for inclusion, however, the means by which he met said criteria are currently in question, I would move to see a RFC on those article(s) in question to see if they meet RFD under Reasons for Deletion, and if that is the case move to the appropriate deletion process. I however agree with SPNic in regards that if his death was indeed featured on the main page, it should be automatic grounds for inclusion, however we have policies for a reason, and with rare exception and consensus, should they be overridden (WP:IAR) . Ltcb2412 (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow you. The criterion specifies that the subject have an article on at least 10 Wikipedia projects. There is no mention of the quality of those articles despite what some have argued. As articles on separate projects I don't see much point in having an RFC or a deletion discussion related to them on this project as each project makes its own rules. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, as I have quoted elsewehere on this page:

Births (and Deaths) are only to be included if there are Wikipedia articles in at least ten languages about the individual in question...This is a minimum requirement for unexplained inclusion. Although inclusion may then be automatic, it will not necessarily be permanent. Any entry may be contested by any editor who finds the entry undue; and, pending discussion, many names might not merit inclusion, even if they have enough non-English articles.

One obvious criterion for contesting inclusion would be whether the 10 articles actually reflect a sufficient level of international notability, their mere existence may not. In this case they don't. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand that is your position. I'm not so sure I understand exactly what Ltcb2412 's position is. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Judging by all the above he's a borderline case, and either way would be OK with me. However, putting aside the technicalities, I'd say that founding the Peace Corps (and he was, apparently, a dynamic founder who set the tone for the Corps for years to come and not just a figurehead or paper-pusher) is pretty important, internationally. Leaving aside the number of foreign language articles or whatever, the Peace Corps did have an international impact - there's lots of people around the globe who are like "Oh yeah, we remember that Peace Corps guy" - and Shriver had something important to do with this, even if he himself was not famous globally. The idea of the Peace Corps was a new idea, and it could have gone off the rails without Shriver, I guess. In the US he was more important and well known than most people remember, I think. Support. Herostratus (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
If, as you say there's lots of people around the globe who are like "Oh yeah, we remember that Peace Corps guy", then a source telling exactly us that would be an excellent one. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Maria Altmann

i am sorry if i sound combative and confrontational but this woman should clearly be included in the world-class deaths. not only is she the largest litigant in the just settled jewish money reclaimed fund but also i worry that this is some anti-semetic predjudice issue keeping her out.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

--70.162.171.210 (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The minimum requirement for inclusion as per the guidelines at WP:RY is 9 non-English articles. Maria Altmann has 2, one of which is an uncited stub clone of the English article. This is so far short of the minimum that there is no justification for including her. It has nothing to do with anti-semetic prejudice, that you should even mention that here is not in the least constructive. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bo Carpelan

He has more than nine foreign articles but has an English stub, thoughts for inclusion on the deaths section. Ifore2010 (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That he was a Dane who wrote mostly in Swedish for a broader Scandinavian audience makes him obviously international in his impact. Addition seems reasonable to me. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. His English article and most of his non-English articles are barely stubs with a list of works. In fact the longest text is about 8 lines, even the Swedish and Finnish ones. Being moderately (as evidenced by his articles) well knnown in Scandinavia barely qualifies as international. He's close, and probably deserves more notability than some who have been included, but I don't think close enough. As always consensus may say otherwise. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
One does need to be careful about how one considers Scandinavia. It is four separate, independent nations, speaking four different languages (although with some overlap). We must never view it as one political entity as we can for, say, the United Kingdom. The test is to think about how you would treat them if they were separated by much larger distances. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

somthin ain't right in the archives

I just noticed this, we have archives 1 and 3, but no archive 2, and the content in the third archive is older than the content in the first. I think the archive bot might have a screw loose. I've only been watching this page a few weeks, maybe someone who has been watching it longer can see if there is anything important missing. There doesn't seem to have ever been a Talk:2011/Archive 2 page, I guess we should move the existing pages around into chronological order or something. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, something very screwy there. There should only be one archive~, there isn't enough there for 2. Might have to retrieve the lot and start again. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I see the problem, the first archive was set at 3! Mea culpa. :( I'll move everything into Archive 1. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, fixed (hopefully in an acceptable way). Everything now in Archive 1. Archive 3 empty but not deleted as I'm pretty sure that would stuff things up! Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Inese Jaunzeme

More than ten languages, an Olympic champion but yet his English page is a stub, thoughts for inclusion Ifore2010 (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Even though I would consider an Olympic Gold medallist more important than a lot of people in Year article Deaths, almost all HER articles are stubs. I could probably make the English one better but the others are all really too small for her to be considered notable enough for inclusion here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't realise it was a woman Ifore2010 (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Betty Garrett

I've removed her, again, because she just does not appear to be particularly notable. Her foreign language articles are mostly stubs, mostly cloned from the English one and contain either no references at all or only the English ones. This does not indicate genuine international notability, sufficient for inclusion here anyway. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Justinas Marcinkevičius

Removed for lack of notability. Before his death he had only 3 non-English articles. The vast majority of the newly created ones consist of one line and a list of works. Someone who was genuine internationally notable would have had more than this before his death. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tucson Shooting

This is a mass shooting involving a U.S. Representative and a senior U.S. federal judge. This is not only extremely rare, but also internationally relevant and belongs on the 2011 page. It is not U.S.-centric to add it to the page. Ttonyb1, tell me why I'm wrong, exactly. Lothar76 (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How is it internationally relevant? There are no international implications or repercussions from the shooting of a US senator who has no international history. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Major events that happen in one country are routinely included as events on the year pages. Take 2007 for example, which includes the deaths of many figures in New Zealand that ordinarily have little relevance outside of the country. I'm not for removing those references, and I doubt you would be for that either. Lothar76 (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. If they're not internationally notable I'd be all for removing them. In the past I've been against the inclusion of NZ Deaths and Events on this basis, including the Pike River Mine disaster in 2010. I don't have time to go through every year checking for notability, it's an extremely time-consuming process. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough about your unwillingness to include the Pike River Mine disaster, but from the 2010 page, items that have questionable international relevance in January of that year alone include the suicide bombing at a volleyball game in Pakistan and the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409. Why should these be included but the 2011 Tucson shooting be omitted? If these events should be omitted as well, then why aren't you doing that particular bit of editing work? I don't find "it's too time consuming" to be a convincing excuse if you have time to argue against my inclusion. Lothar76 (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Lothar76 is this specific enough for you? Thanks, DerbyCountyinNZ ttonyb (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's not very helpful and is quite flippant in tone. I don't appreciate it. Lothar76 (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry you feel this way. I see nothing flippant about any DerbyCountyinNZ's or my responses; however, I do see your addition questioning DerbyCountyinNZ's time as bordering on WP:UNCIVIL. You might want to review WP:AGF and WP:UNCIVIL. If you have any questions about these articles, feel free to ask DerbyCountyinNZ or myself.
If you do not find a response helpful, then I suggest you ask a specific question that might help resolve your lack of understanding. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
DerbyCountyinNZ brought up the issue of his time, not me, so I see nothing even approaching WP:UNCIVIL on my part. As for your response, it added nothing - DerbyCountyinNZ's response was enough, and your addition was simply to provoke me. Lothar76 (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Once more please read WP:AGF. ttonyb (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I did assume good faith, but when you posted the equivalent of "Booyah, suck on that, Lothar76," what else would that be but a provocation? Lothar76 (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll assume that this is the closest thing I'll get to an apology from you. See, I do assume good faith. =) Lothar76 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Witty banter aside, I'm not sure what is not notable about a mass shooting and assassination attempt in a developed country. Without meaning to sound like an ethnocentric jerk, such events are significantly more unusual in the context of a country like the United States being the site of the Tucson shooting (although I'm surprised by the reluctance to include the assassination of the Punjabi governor as "notable", considering the geopolitical ramifications and the large population of Pakistani Punjab, as well) as opposed to, say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Afghanistan. We're talking highest-ranking member of the U.S. government to be shot in almost 30 years, as well as one of the worst mass shootings on record in the past several years. Count me in for its inclusion. - Kudzu1 (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said it wasn't notable, just that it has no importance outside US borders. WP:RY clearly states: "assassinations or other similarly serious crimes can be listed if international relevance is demonstrated". As for Salmaan Taseer assassination, I would support the inclusion if it becomes clear that it influenced Indian-Pakistani relations in a significant way. — Yerpo Eh? 12:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
A local politician with no international connections was shot by a citizen of her own country in her own country. There is no suggestion that anyone from another country was involved in any way nor that there are any repercussions in any other country whatsoever. This makes it a local event with no international notability. The scale of the shooting is not uncommon, particularly in the United States, so again there is no international notability on that basis. That it happened in the United States does not make it more important than if it had happened in any other country, being slightly more unusual might make it a big deal in the news, it doesn't make it more notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I am also opposed to including the shooting. While it is true that the American media are all over this story, I would hesitate to assume the attention is as focused in other countries, if international media have mentioned it at all. If I may be frank, and please don't take this the wrong way, Gabrielle Giffords is just a member of Congress, and a fairly new one at that (elected in 2006); her removal from the political spectrum is not likely to have any lasting impact on world or even domestic events, and as such, this news probably isn't fit to be included here. That's not to say that I do not believe the event to be tragic, or important, it's just not to the degree that would warrant inclusion. SheaF91 (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to get my two cents in, I believe this should be included as I have definitely seen plenty of other national events on a similar or smaller scale that have been included on year pages, but to be completely honest I think if anything we should be mourning what happened on Saturday instead of arguing over it. RedSoxFan274 (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Arguing is what we do best! But you are correct, the tragedy ideally should not be drowned out over bickering. And that is why I will concede that if a clear majority for inclusion were to surface on this issue, I would not make attempts to stop it. Regardless, I don't know what the others might think. I thought the discussion was over, but more may be required. SheaF91 (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
At the moment we have 4-3 against inclusion. The main argument for inclusion appears to be that "other articles have similar entries" which could equally been interpreted as "other articles have similar entries which should also be considered for exclusion". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It could also be interpreted as a clear case of WP:OTHERSTUFF which should ideally be avoided in discussions. — Yerpo Eh? 08:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It was an assassination attempt, mass shooting, and is widely considered to be a domestic terrorist attack. The shooting of Senator Huey Long is under the 1935 page, and it wasn't international. The year pages are for significant events, local or not. I doesn't have to be international... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.231.176 (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Year articles are for the more significant events that have international impact. If the level of "significance" is lowered too much these articles would get too large. That is why there are Year in Country and Year in Topic articles. Earlier Year articles not only have fewer events included but have events which are included because of their comparative rarity at the time and in most cases haven't been subjected to any sort of vetting for significance. Some of them still include entries which are so insignificant they would be lucky to make a Year in Country or Year in Topic article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I must say to Americans something that a lot of them won't like, and that is that a lot of the international impact was very much along the lines of "Look what those dumb American gun laws have again led to." The implication was that it was no surprise (i.e. not notable) for a country that allows so much gun toting. Is that really what you want the article to be telling the rest of the world in this global encyclopaedia? HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the item. Anyone who thinks an event which draws the personal attention of the President of the United States (at a nationally broadcast memorial service) and gets world-wide news coverage 512 items from Google News UK, '.co.uk' sites is 'U.S.-centrc' is really not paying any attention what-so-ever. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That you choose to mention the attention of the President of the United States as your first justification seemingly proves that you don't understand what US-centrism is. That's about as US-centric as you can get. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Jeez, man, you missed the whole point, it had a national memorial service, and other major news outlets in several countries around the world. That means it had international impact. And again, if this isn't an international story (which it is...), then neither is the Columbine massacre in Colorado in 1999, or the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan in 1981. Oh god, they didn't talk about it in Ethiopia, it must not be significant. Rockin'OutWithMyGlockOut (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, there's a huge irony in your mention of a national memorial service as your first justification for inclusion in an international article. What is it you guys don't get about American internal stuff not being significant to the rest of the world? OK, news coverage outside America can be relevant, but TV news in my country always has disproportionate coverage of American events, especially if there are pictures. We get big coverage of the Superbowl, even though nobody here even understands the rules. What needs to be demonstrated is that this event will change something outside the USA. My impression is that it won't change much even inside the USA. The gun lovers will maintain their belligerence. Politics will stay the same. Some people have been killed and hurt, but most of the rest of the country will carry on as normal. So will the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
In order for an entry to be included on this page, it must have an international impact. This entry does not, and thus does not warrant inclusion. People seem to not understand this, but I don't think it's through a fault of their own. American media has inflated this story much further than is necessary. Just because it's the only thing that's been on the news recently doesn't mean it carries any weight in the realm of international politics. Also to note is that I am now steadfastly against inclusion, so it shows not all Americans are for it. SheaF91 (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a Brit, I think the Tucson shooting is hugely significant internationally. It is:

  1. A political assassination attempt that was almost successful
  2. A mass shooting
  3. A shooting in which a notable person was killed and another notable person was almost killed
  4. An event that has drawn international public comment
  5. An event that has affected public opinion in the USA to the extent that it could result in significant political developments.
  6. An event that has had a national impact in the USA, which is one of the world's most populous countries
  7. Do I need to go on?

Whilst it's true that the USA gets more than its fair share of coverage in wikipedia, that does not excuse the omission of an event that has had widespread international media coverage just because it happened in the USA. If it had happened in France or Germany, I feel quite sure it would be included without question. Deb (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know who is the one who refuses this event to be included or what right they have in doing so, but I do believe that at this time it is fair enough to say that the 2011 Tucson Shooting should be included in the 2011 events section, I will write it up, and if anyone feels that it REALLY is that important to omit it, PLEASE discuss it here first and let's not start an edit war.98.228.231.176 (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to get consensus here before adding it. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
HELLO!? Most of the people on here agree that it should be added. 98.228.231.176 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
See the formal Request for comment at the bottom of this page. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Since this discussion has not reached consensus, and appears to be derailing and possibly becoming uncivil, as it already appears to have gone in that direction once, I am going to nominate this article and place it under a Requests for Comment, as it meets policy for application per WP:RFC. The discussion has had ample time to resolve prior to the nomination for RFC, as this discussion has been active for at least 2 weeks. Any further comments are encouraged to be placed in the appropriate section below. Ltcb2412 (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Several incidents with a few people getting mildly injured in obscure African countries are always on these pages, and those don't get ANY attention. While this shooting is in a widely developed country with three hundred million people, and has had TONS of news coverage, yet this isn't notable enough? I think a horse getting poisoned in Afghanistan would be on this site, due to this hypocrisy. 65.190.77.16 (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you point us to any of those "Several incidents...on these pages"? And even if they exist, I'll bet the residents of those African countries don't see them as obscure. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's one incident of information nobody cares about. "Estonia joins the Eurozone". OH WOW I REALLY CARE! I also added the shooting to the page. Go ban me. I have proxies anyway. This is the reason I laugh at the donation ads. Capitalistmaniac (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
(precognitive sigh) SheaF91 (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
My GOD, This is such bulls*it! There are SO many other unimportant things on the year pages. I think the person saying this is "US-centric" and "insignificant" is jealous that their country doesn't get enough attention. "Capitalistmaniac" is right 'Estonia joins the Eurozone'...who gives a fu*k!? If that's important enough to be on here then so is the Tucson shooting! 98.228.231.176 (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

To those last couple of posters, please look at WP:Good Faith. And perhaps Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people". HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Arab protest movement, again

Extended content

First we had folks claiming that the tunisian thing wasn't "international" enough. Now two more governments are toppling as part of the same movement, and that is being removed. They are all part of the same story, that is the whole point. Mubarak agreeing to step aside (eventually) and Abdulah firing the entire cabinet and appointing a new PM are part of the same series of events that began in Tunisia last month. Chronicling milestones in this ongoing international incident is exactly what readers come to year articles for. I can't believe this [3] edit summary. This did happen and is undeniably notable and related to the ongoing protests which have now spilled over into Jordan. Although not nearly as large as the other protests, they are perhaps more notable because Jordanians don't really do street protests, ever, as they can be arrested for merely criticizing the King. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. I don't comprehend the perspective of those who think nothing of significance is happening in the Arab world. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
One of the problems with this issue is that individual protests in themselves are not particularly notable, they happen in frequently in many countries. When the protests bring about a change in government or the resignation of a head of state then that is more notable. Mubarak resigning as the direct result of the Egyptian protests would be notable, however at the moment he has only said he will not stand for the next election, not quite the same as actually resigning. Including all the other minor local events in a general article as this would be excessive. These events are not linked as they would be for a multi-national conflict, they are essentially a series of local events (i.e. no-one from any other country is involved) occurring at the same time that have a common theme. Therefore the 2010–2011 Arab world protests is worthy of inclusion, as might any actual change of government. How to include it is a bit difficult, I supppose it could go under "Ongoing" as there's no definitive start date. Any reader of this article can go to 2010–2011 Arab world protests if they want to see more specific details. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree completely. In this case even if the governments DO NOT fall the very protests themselves represent a huge change in the mentality of the Arabic World. Which in and of itself is internationally notable. Think Tiananmen 1989 as another example of important but ultimately failed protests or more recently Iran 2009. --Kuzwa (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I feel as though we should wait until the protests have ended (or at least died down) to see what the final outcome is before any record of it is committed to the page, although I would lean towards inclusion if the decision had to be made at this moment. SheaF91 (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I wonder, have I missunderstod what a notable event is? I have allways assumed that when an event occurs, it is placed under its category (such as news, music, sport etc.) and if the event were to be subject to more attention than usual, it may also be copied to the main page. If this is correct, then in this case, the media attention alone should by now be enought grant these events a place in the 2011 section, or am I wrong? RBM 72 (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a notable event. It has been in the news on every continent: I personally know it is news is China, the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and the US, at the very least. It really needs to be on here. Doesn't the policy say it is a three continent rule? This blows that out of the water. Wrad (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The assertion that these events are not linked and have not included persons from multiple countries is bunk. Anyone who has actually been paying attention to the facts can see that. There have been protests directed at the Mubarak government outside of Egyptian embassies in many other countries.[4] Foreign journalists and aid workers have been attacked by Mubarak supporters in the last few days.[5] President Obama[6] all 27 leaders of EU nations, [7] and other world leaders have been making public statements calling for him to leave office immediately. A lot of attention has been paid in the press to how this will impact Israel.[8] Please take the time to learn the facts before baldly asserting that there are no other countries involved. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Asia: [9][10] North America: [11] South America: [12] Europe: [13] Africa: [14] [15] Australia: [16] [17] Sorry, I couldn't find Antarctica :) Wrad (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, do some of you people have difficulty reading/understanding? The 2010–2011 Arab world protests have actually been included under 14 January. It's not like they are not there at all! It is agreed that they are notable, in fact by the end of the year they may be sufficiently notable to be included in the lede. The question is how many of the individual protests deserve to be recognised individually. Do people want them all mentioned? Every protest in every country on every day that they occur? The mere fact that under that requirement there are already dozens diminshes the notability of each individual protest. And besides, anti-government protests happen in many countries on a frequent basis, do they all deserve to be considered as well? As this is a summary article only the most important events need to be detailed, readers can go to the linked articles for more details. In this case the most important aspects (on a day by day basis) are going to be actual changes of government/leadership. If Mubarak doesn't stand down then his assertion that he would loses a large portion of its notability, if he does stand down then that becomes far more important than his assertion that he would.
Suggestion:-
The second entry can always be amended removed later as circumstances change. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Wrad (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anyone arguing that every day be documented, but the sacking of the entire Jordanian cabinet should be mentioned alongside Mubarak agreeing not to run as a milestone event in the ongoing unrest. I would also point out that the main point I was trying to make is that your assertion that people from other nations were not involved has been conclusively proven to be false. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I do agree that, taken collectively, the international relevance of these events is easier to see. Unfortunately, this is one of the weaknesses of a timeline as opposed to a summary. Wrad (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I like the format given above by Derby, but I also support the Jordanian incident being included. Ultimately, any major sweeping change in government should be included. Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, and Tunisia being the major changes. Algeria's removal of State of Emergency, however, probably wouldn't quality for a major change in government. But mainly, these protests are extremely relevant to this year, as they are not only sweeping the middle east, but they're starting to extend beyond that area.--Fbifriday (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Yea, the Jordananian incident is not less notable just because King Abdullah had the sense and foresight to see which way the wind was blowing and act before things got out of control in his country the way they have in Egypt. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has resigned as President, and I see that someone has already updated the timeline to include this event, which I totally support. But I think that the wording is a bit off: the Egyptian government didn't really fall so much as Mubarak simply resigned as a result of the protests. So perhaps a better blurb would be "February 11 - Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak resigns as a result of the spreading 2010–2011 Arab world protests." SheaF91 (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Edit: I had forgotten to sign before the revision was made, so I've signed now.

This is definitely a bigger milestone in these ongoing events, so I agree we can scratch the previous mention of him just saying he would leave in September, but I still think we need to note that entire Jordanian cabinet was sacked on that same day. Oh, and agree with the above, although that may change in the coming hours or days, all bets are off at a time like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Wondering if maybe we should include an image related to these events, possibly this one File:2010-2011 Arab world protests.PNG which shows the scope of the movement. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
A picture of one of the protests might be more interesting, though, and it would certainly add a human element to the picture. SheaF91 (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

With the events of the past week or so and the increasing spread of protests around the Arab World and other countries (notably China), I think the idea of including a general note about the phenomenon would be an interesting one. Where to put it would be up to debate, though I would hesitate as of yet to put it in the opening blurb. Then again, it may be wiser to wait out what is happening right now, and to be sure of what kind of importance it has in modern history. Any thoughts? SheaF91 (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, the way things are going it's hard to tell what the most important event in each country is or which date(s) are the most important generally. As for modern history, if Gaddafi goes, or a principality/monarchy is overthrown then we're probably looking at one of the major political events of the decade (even though we're only a few months in!). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the comment about Gadhafi. His ouster would be a major event. Only time can tell what will happen, though. SheaF91 (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011/Archive_1&oldid=1142390393"