Talk:2011/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

May 21

The end of the world, predicted at [1], is getting some secondary press; is it worth listing? —Tamfang (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Check the archives. I think the consensus is that it will be worthy to include when it happens (i.e. never). — Yerpo Eh? 16:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, i think the harold camping thing would be worthy enough to put in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.132.139 (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

eriously, if this was realistically expected to happen what would be the point of putting it in wiki??? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Why on Earth would anyone sane take this drama queen seriously? Wasn't everything supposed to end already in 1994, [http://www.amazon.com/1994-Harold-Camping/dp/0533103681 according to him]? One of the most basic Wikipedia community guidelines also applies to real-world situations. The last we need is other aspiring "Bible scholars" noting here how far he got with this hysteria, unless we want to start listing two or three examples of such nonsense every year. — Yerpo Eh? 08:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't exactly know if we should put it in this article, unless it either happens or Harold Camping dies. Zeldafan3242! :) 13:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  • May 22 – Wikipedians alone emerge from the Rapture unscathed, making the souls of the snoozy survivors from The Langoliers obscenely jealous. =] Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn

You do know that France is one of only like 11 nations where the President holds the nuclear football right? - and thus heinous allegations, such as rape of a servent, against Dominique Strauss-Kahn with him trying to ever be president are a big thing thereby--70.162.171.210 (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

essentially, any one of these presidents has the power to end the world with a push of a button--70.162.171.210 (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The allegations are perhaps a big thing for France, but for now (he just begun to try to become a president), he is only important as the director of the IMF. Guessing if he would become a president without this scandal is just that - guessing (see WP:CRYSTAL), and trying to make him important because his nation has nuclear weapons is silly. I would support the inclusion if and when he is sentenced. Such allegations really do happen all the time in politics. — Yerpo Eh? 07:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
As a comparison the Roman Polanski arrest garnered far more NEWS space but was (eventually) removed from 2009 for lack of notability. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure I get your point, Dominique Strauss-Kahn is not president of France... What has the responsibilities of the French leader got to do with the Managing director of the IMF? FFMG (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
As much as I may hate to say this about Strauss-Kahn uh, certain individuals, he is protected by WP:BLP and probably should not be mentioned in this context unless, perhaps, a major new development (such as conviction) occurs. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
A very notable Frenchman has been charged, had a brief stay in prison on remand in the US and has resigned as head of the IMF. Does all of that make this incident of enough international relevance to be included in this article? The IMF is obviously an international organisation. Are there guidelines regarding inclusions of criminal proceedings? Can they only be included when there are convictions? How about resignations? Is anything in any guideline about them? 188.29.70.25 (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Randy Savage

[Moved from Randy savage prefix:Talk:2011/ — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)]
Hello i be leave Randy'Macho Man'Savage should have his own picture on the main 2011 article my reasons are he had a career that span over three decades he was also an actor plus he is one of the greatest pro wrestlers in history.So please show him the amount of respect like everyone else who has there photo on display thank you. — Jack11111 20:43, 23 May 2011

if it were up to me not only would he not have a picture but also i would remove him from the world article - PHOTO EXCLUDE--70.162.171.210 (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Rather than him being "one of the greatest pro wrestlers in history", it's more accurate to say that the scriptwriters made the character that he played "one of the greatest pro wrestlers in history". Maybe the scriptwriters should be in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Exclude Photo – If I were to add anyone it would be Jackie Cooper. He had a career that spanned period twice as long as the wrestler/actor. ttonyb (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Randy Savage clearly meets the criteria for inclusion. My understanding, though, is that pictures are limited to one per month. Regardless of your feelings on Savage, however, it is beyond dispute that Osama bin Laden is more internationally notable, so bin Laden's picture is the one that will be included (unless, of course, someone more notable dies before the end of the month). While I feel that his death is certainly unfortunate, please also note that Wikipedia is not a tribute site, so showing respect is not the goal. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Taoiseach vs. Prime Minister

Garret FitzGerald, who has a death entry for this month, was the 7th Taoiseach of Ireland. "Taoiseach" was, I fully acknowledge, the official title that he held in Ireland; this is not in question whatsoever. I suggest, however, that for practical purposes this article refer to him as "7th Prime Minister of Ireland". My reasoning is as follows: The Irish term "Taoiseach" is probably of limited accessibility to many, if not most, English-Wiki readers. Death-section entries need to use the most accessible English possible, because they don't contain wikilinks to circumvent vocabulary issues. So, if an English equivalent for an exotic foreign term exists, that equivalent would seem preferable in year article death sections. Because the Taoiseach's own, official website clarifies "Taoiseach" as "Prime Minister", I would say we have quite a reliable source on which to base some editorial discretion, and I maintain that the entry in question would gain in accessibility, while retaining accuracy, if it were to substitute "Prime Minister" for "Taoiseach". I raise this question for two reasons: First, my initial "translation" was reverted--without explanation--so I imagine it could be a matter of contention. Second, considering that I know absolutely nothing about contemporary Irish politics or culture, I admit that my entire argument could be utter blarney. :P Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all , let me say I understand Cosmic Latte's reasons the change; however, I do not agree the title should be changed to PM. The individual's official title was Taoiseach not PM. When I saw the title, I was intrigued enough to go to the article to get more information about the individual and title. The site that talks abut PM lists PM (per my interpretation) more as a description of Taoiseach, than a official title. Perhaps we should consider using Taoiseach (Prime Minister) as the title. My best to all... ttonyb (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden

Regardless of the fact that the death was apparently on May 2 in Pakistan, the announcement was May 1 in the US, at least in my time zone. Perhaps the "Events" listing should be corrected? (Also, there are some reliable sources which indicate the death may have been up to a week earlier, and the announcement was delayed until DNA analysis could be completed.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It should probably be changed to the 1st. The event listed is POTUS "declares in a media statement." I would think the date would be where the event took place, unless UTC is specified. ttonyb (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Go by the UTC, as Wikipedia is an international encylopedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Events are listed as local time, if it is to be changed to UTC, then the event needs to say UTC. ttonyb (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense. If we went by UTC, Gerald Ford's DOT would've been December 27, 2006. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Can we also add an image of Osama bin Laden into the death section near the May category? I think he was a prominent enough figure to deserve that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarheal (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
There was one there that I removed because it was messing up the format by rolling into the next category. ttonyb (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This again comes down to the space issue created by the Year in Other Calendars box. I still haven't found a solution for this. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Methinks it would be best to go by local time for births, deaths, and geographically isolated events (if an event spans time zones in two different dates, then I'd simply note both dates). If we always based dates on UTC, we'd end up with stuff like (to use an off-the-cuff example) "September 12 -- Such-and-such happens in the final hours of 9/11." Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Have it as local time. I think many Americans would be annoyed if I was to refer to it as the September 12 Attacks (which was the date in my country). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.141.56 (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

European debt crisis

I think it is right to include Portugal's bailout as a notable event as it was the third to be bailed out same as Ireland and Greece.Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"CURRENTLY, "there are two countries that are having severe problems - greece and portugal - for myself i think that this could snowball to something worse real quick but for now the dangerous portents of greece and portugal are still isolated there alone - thus, to say there is more than that at this stage is just "crystal-ball".--70.162.171.210 (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
oh, and you forgot to mention iceland in the bailout countries--70.162.171.210 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
all three countries are in dire economic circumstances and it is very significant when it goes under. I think it should be included same as Ireland, Iceland and Greece. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Since there is no more discussion, I move to put Portugal's bailout as part of 2011 notable events 58.69.81.134 (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Let's give it a week to conclude before we add it to the article. ttonyb (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you, many countries go bankrupt, (or default), many other countries are bailed out, one way or another. So listing Portugal could snowball into requests to list other countries. FFMG (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
If no one objects, we include the article 58.69.81.134 (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Once more, let's give it a full week to conclude before we add it to the article. ttonyb (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure I was clear enough in my previous reply, I don't think this should be listed. Bailouts are common and there is nothing special about the 3 you mention.
As I said, if we list the European countries we might have to list all the countries that have been bailed out over the years. FFMG (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
We have listed financial crisis in several countries such as Argentina and Mexico — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.194.63 (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
In which articles? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sergei Bagapsh, 2nd President of Abkhazia

no such country recognized by UN and therefore the rule of former heads of state excludes him--70.162.171.210 (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What rule of former heads of state? The individual meets the minimum number of project articles per WP:RY. ttonyb (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The previous consensus re heads of state is that they should be included even if they do not meet the minimum foreign language requirement unless there are strong reasons not to. As Bagapsh was not an official head of state that would not apply. However, as he far exceeds the minimum foreign language requirement that is irrelevant. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

it makes no sense to say there is such a country - there is no such place - essentially this is the same as when saddam huseein invaded kuwait and then called just some state within iraq - it makes no sense to say that 6 countries say there is such a country and (what are there 181 United Nations countries) and 175 have never heard of this Russian-annexed kuwait wanabe--70.162.171.210 (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I repeat: Your argument is irrelevant for his inclusion in this article. The current, more appropriate, description of him in the Deaths section does not even refer to Abkhazia! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the largest outbreaks of E. coli

the wiki article has grown fairly large at this point.70.162.171.210 (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

18 deaths isn't particularly significant. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
you do know that just after the japanese tidal wave you said that the event was prbably not relevent if 99 or less people have died - thus did you even read the article? - they say that the genome of the organism is fairly different than the stains of E.coli are thereby no human being is likely to have much immunity to this new virulent pathogen - i will remember your quote of 18 when there are thousands dead again like japan!--70.162.171.210 (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
All that says that we need to be patient. Let's see what happens over the next couple of weeks. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The statement about the genome being different is disputed. A news article claims that it's related to the strain of a previous outbreak. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Irwin D. Mandel

this just goes to show how far out of whack this article, 2011, is - have you heard of brushing and flossing your teeth each day? - and who on this planet has not? - this is the guy who proved it and yet he will never get the just notice here that he desearves for that--70.162.171.210 (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

hell worse yet for wikipedia - this guy did not even have an article here until a week after his death!--70.162.171.210 (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, a reasonable person would sooner assume that your assessment of his importance is out of whack. Tooth brushing is as old as humanity and while his discoveries are somewhat important, he could hardly be credited single-handedly for the prevalence of this practice around the world. Even in the USA, the practice of regular brushing started at the end of WWII, just at the time when he got his degree. — Yerpo Eh? 12:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please dont make yourself sound silly - the underlying principle from my statement is "the guy who proved it" - people were happy as hell to smoke cigarettes until the 1964 surgeon general's advisory - in a recent proof to discredit your thinking of that a general use proves anything, it was thought until recently that high fat intake = colon cancer ... this is false, a study proved that the public conception was wrong - further, the ADA i think knows who is who and who has done what and they gave their first prize to Mandel ... if you read the wiki article!--70.162.171.210 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, at least bother to read what I wrote before making irrelevant statements about how you think I sound. I wasn't saying anything about any proof - just that oral hygiene was already improving before Mandel proved anything. I'm sure Mendel's findings promoted public health in the USA, but note that this page lists the most important people globally. Why should a prize given by an American organization to an American make any difference? — Yerpo Eh? 16:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Anyon e who doesn't even have an article until after his death can't be notable enough to be included in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Presidency of the Council of the European Union

The Presidency of the Council of the European Union should be added to the list of events because the Council of the European Union is very important in Europe and quite important for trade and such in Europe from foreign countries. The presidency of the council is changed every 6 months and why shouldn't it be added to the list of events? Plarem (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:RY#Politics and legislation: "Regular and ordinary shifts in power within the United Nations and European Union are also not sufficiently notable." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Estonia into Eurozone

I believe that the entering of the EU country Estonia should be added to the list of events as it is of international significance as the Euro is the national currency of over 12 countries and the euro is one of the largest currencies in the world. I believe that this should reach the consensus and be added onto the page 2011. Plarem (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It would have been better to await actual consensus rather than claim it when there is none and then make the change anyway. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

M. F. Husain

He exceeds the minimum language requirement but it appears that most of the languages are Indian, there are only 3 other non-English language articles. Does this comply with the intent of the WP:RY guidelines? And if not, is his inclusion justified anyway? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Leaning towards inclusion, here. It's true that presence of the article in different Indian languages doesn't constitute international importance (in the sense that "international" means across country borders), but we are talking about nations in a country almost twice the population of Europe. Presence of non-trivial articles in English, Dutch, German and French Wikis from well before his death further proves his importance to many people. — Yerpo Eh? 09:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Fazul Abdullah Mohammed

i added him and he got pulled - with a 5 million us $ bounty and world wide coverage of his death i am not sure what you consider notable at this point--70.162.171.210 (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Currently 5 non-English articles, only 2 at the time of his death. Clearly fails WP:RY. Need consensus to include. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the quick response - sometimes a thing will fail and be just under the line - it happens - i guess this was the case this time--70.162.171.210 (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

All these volcano articles

I understand the idea that air traffic disruption constitutes an international event, but I'm thinking that having a note for every disruption to air traffic is silly. The reason for this is that air traffic disruption is not a particularly uncommon or world changing event. Plenty of other things be it strikes, hurricanes, snow storms and so forth can disrupt air travel like a volcano. Last year's eruption in Iceland was an exception simply for the length of time the disruption took place, the volume of traffic disrupted, and the measures implemented afterwards. This year's eruptions however really come no wheres close to the same impact, and thus I feel are not noteworthy enough for inclusion here. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Östen Mäkitalo, seeking consensus for exception and inclusion

unless i have missread his article, he is the inventor of the cell phone - he may not meet the criteria for inclusion since i posted him and he got pulled - i am seeking consensus for inclusion--70.162.171.210 (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The criteria are clear - presence of articles in 9 languages other than English, and consensus has emerged in recent months that those articles have to be written before the person's death (marginally notable deaths get widely reported these days which spurs creation of articles in different Wikipedias, but this doesn't reflect importance as much as it reflects recentism). For the same reason, those articles should not be very short or merely clones of the English-language one. It looks to me that Östen Mäkitalo is not considered as important as his biography here suggests, otherwise he would have more than one foreign-language article. So no, I don't think he should be included among the most important people that died this year. — Yerpo Eh? 13:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania

Should wikimania be inclued Grieve29 (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No, per WP:SELF. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Dunn

June 20 – Ryan Dunn, American stuntman and actor (b. 1977)

now i have seen everything, DerbyCountryNZ you think this reality program "star" belongs on the year article???--70.162.171.210 (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

up until now i thought for sure you must be defending the integrity of wiki - i see now that i was mistaken--70.162.171.210 (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't believe he deserves to be included. However, he exceeds the minimimum requirement of non-English articles; how he managed to have 9 before his death beats me. If I get time to go through those articles to see whether or not they are substantial enough for inclusion and they're not, then I'm happy to make an argument for exclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Jackass does have a worldwide following which may explain how Dunn managed to get nine foreign articles during his lifetime Ifore2010 (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of analyzing his Wikipresence. Let's see:

  • da: a tiny stub, the largest part of which is a description of the circumstances of his death
  • de: a semi-decent article from before June 20
  • es: the article was only written on June 20 and is a clone of the English one
  • fr: a decent article from before June 20
  • gl: one sentence, which was written on June 20
  • it: a semi-decent article from before June 20
  • nl: a semi-decent article from before June 20
  • no: the article was only written on June 20
  • pl: a decent article from before June 20
  • pt: a stub that consisted of one sentence before June 20
  • ru: a stub, which was written on June 21
  • fi: a stub from before June 20
  • sv: significantly expanded on and after June 20, but still a stub

That's 5 Wikis with something resembling an article, and 9 with anything from before June 20. I'd say exclude, but that's just me. — Yerpo Eh? 21:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That summary would lean me toward exclusion, seems like a case of WP:Recentism rather than notability. Jackass being reasonably well-known does not necessarily make the people in it well-known. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I would also lean toward exclusion, while I am not surprised at the number of articles, (Jackass was quite popular at one stage), I don't think he was notable enough to have an entry here. FFMG (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that Derby already did it. I commented his entry out of the list for now, I think it's clearer this way that we're aware of his death but the consensus about his inclusion is still not reached. Be prepared to handle a couple of dozen comments in the line of "how can this world-famous artist not be included, when xy is?" from Jackass fans, I won't have much time or energy for that. Just to be completely clear, I support the exclusion for the reason stated above. — Yerpo Eh? 08:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

ok - here is the detective work ...

everyone who has bothered to add to the discussion here has said to exclude ...

from the history log the same guy just keeps adding the item back into the article each time - he just keeps changing his anonomous ip

here was the order:

71.244.136.205 added it in without any comment - this is the "only" ever contribution by this ip to wiki

24.12.89.33 added it again without any comment - this is one of 5 ever contributions by this ip to wiki (none of these "contributions" had any comment when added)

71.200.72.93 added it again without any comment - this is the "only" ever contribution by this ip to wiki

69.231.198.115 added it again without any comment - this is the "only" ever contribution by this ip to wiki

71.201.28.187 added it again without any comment - this is one of 3 ever contributions by this ip to wiki

96.2.123.135 added it again without any comment - this is the "only" ever contribution by this ip to wiki

180.181.85.198 added it again without any comment - this is the "only" ever contribution by this ip to wiki

82.15.2.159 added it again without any comment - this is one of 4 ever contributions by this ip to wiki (none of these "contributions" had any comment when added)

i think it is obvious this is one guy who is randomly generating ip's--70.162.171.210 (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

a new section for vandalism needs to be added just like this one Wikipedia:Recent years - maybe it should be called Wikipedia:Vandalism through single use random ip --70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

two more subsequent events on page by this guy of Wikipedia:Vand--70.162.171.210 (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't you think you're over-analyzing this? Maybe he's teasing you (go read Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls). Just keep removing the addition until he gives up or the consensus changes. Alternatively, you can ask for this page to be semi-protected. A list of random IPs won't benefit anybody, though. — Yerpo Eh? 19:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

New York same-sex marriage

I believe that New York legalizing same-sex marriage should be added given that particular US state's status as a global financial center, its worldwide recognition, and being the birthplace of the gay rights movement. Should New York be given special recognition? I would agree that adding on this page every US state that legalizes same-sex marriage in the near-future would make this page very US-centric, but the fact stands that New York is widely known throughout the world, and it's decision was a symbolic victory for civil rights. (Tigerghost (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC))

But, (as far as I know), it is not the first US State to legalise it, and it is not the only global financial centre. I also don't know about 'the birthplace of the gay rights movement'.
Many countries, (like mine), have legalised same sex marriages a long time ago and they do not have an entry for that year when the law was passed, why should we list one state of the US, when a lot of countries that have legalised same sex marriage are not even listed?
Finally, where do we draw the line? Capital punishment laws, inheritance laws, when that law is overturned, (not saying it will, but it might), why should/would that particular law make any difference in the international front? FFMG (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Minor local event. Exclude. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Important enough to be on 2011 in the United States, but not here. 188.29.131.49 (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter Falk vs. Jack Kevorkian picture

three times now Yerpo you have changed the picture to the quack ... i think that means you have been outvoted by concensus.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The pictures in Deaths sections are overwhelmingly of entertainment people, someone else for a change would balance things out a bit. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
"Outvoted by concensus" [sic]? By anonymous contributions that could as well be made by a single person and didn't provide any rationale for including the fourth picture of an entertainer out of six in this year's deaths section? You have a strange definition of consensus... — Yerpo Eh? 06:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Skype

An editor recently added:

Because I hit the wrong button, I didn't give a reason when I reverted. I'm doing so now. Unless Microsoft screws up, even the actual acquisition wouldn't affect many people. This is just the announcement of the acquisition. The notability is speculation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Mika Myllylä

  • He has more than the number of articles needed, an Olympic gold medalist but his English one is a relative stub, worthy for inclusion anyway? Ifore2010 (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, he had more than 9 non-English articles long before his death so that's a plus. And the Olympics is the most international of sporting activities, even if cross-country skiing is not. He's also not just a Gold medalist but a multiple medalist and won mutliple World Championships as well. True, the English article isn't extensive and some of the others are not too substantial either, but some are far more extensive than the English one and the largest ones are clearly not clones of each other which suggests he was sufficiently notable in those languages to deserve the independent creation of an article. I would lean towards inclusion but would probably not press too hard if the consensus to exclude. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

did you read his article? - cheater thru performance enhancing doping - most likely, ultimately, died a premature death due to his shame, causing depression and thereby alcohol abuse - if i saw him on the street i would spit on the ground and walk to the other side of the street!--70.162.171.210 (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Neptune orbit

Why is not notable, I think it's historic that it's about to complete it's first orbit after 165 years Ifore2010 (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Trivial. Belongs in 2011 in astronomy, 2011 in science or something similar. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
If you care about science and astronomy, and think it's good to draw the attention of others to those areas, it's not trivial. This is a time for all prejudices and ignorance to run free. HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't this fall under the restriction of the listing of anniversaries in year articles? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not an anniversary. It's a commentary on the progress of science and the scale of things in astronomy. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is an anniversary and mentioning it is not a commentary on current progress or astronomy (which is what might be relevant for a Year article), it is a reminder/celebration/commemoration of earlier scientific progress etc. That makes it an anniversary and not notable enough for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
It's interesting how you use anniversary there. An anniversary is a commemoration of a number of years since something happened. In this case it's NOT a number of earthly years, but one Neptunian year. To me, the fact that you do that makes this event significant. (It won't happen again!) HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
If you want to be pedantic...Anniversary: "An anniversary is a day that commemorates and/or celebrates a past event that occurred on the same day of the year as the initial event." So strictly speaking it is not an anniversary. Which actually makes it even less notable. In fact it is not really notable to anyone except a few astronomers. And still not notable enough for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
It's sad that so many of the masses see astronomy in general as not notable. It wasn't always that way. I suspect it's because city based light pollution means that most people today never really see the stars, and hence no curiosity. To me, that makes it even more important that we post astronomical events. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
But if anyone remembers anything from astronomy it's the planets of the Solar System. My school taught them in kindergarten. When I was young I was looking at a chart of planet years, remembered that Neptune was discovered in the early 1800s, and wondered "hey, when will all the planets have gone around once?" I took out a calculator/book we had such history of high technology then and I was surprised that Neptune won't complete an orbit for 10 years! 1846 seemed/seems like so long ago to tie to today, what's wrong with showing how far we've gone? Wouldn't you want to show the date the last Nazi dies, even though it's not current progress and trivial? I'm sure many other people find this factoid interesting. Since all of the planets are found (else it'd be really far and have a titanic year, see Eris) for our purposes this is only the second and last time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.0.56 (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

US tornadoes

I recognize that tornadoes are very small scale disasters the vast majority of the time, however the outbreaks such as the one that occurred on April 27 deserves attention. Its economic toll probably now ranks in the costliest US natural disasters, it was the deadliest US natural disaster since Katrina, and the third deadliest disaster for the US in general since several decades ago (not including heat waves). In addition, I believe what unfolded in Joplin, MO might be worth noting.--Trilobite12 (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is definitely relevant in 2011 in the United States, but, outside the US, it has little or no impact, so it shouldn't be listed here. FFMG (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that in the international scheme, it has little impact. However, if this the argument, then its fair that the section on the flooding in Rio Janeiro be removed. In addition, the outbreak took place the day before the royal wedding, so media coverage on the event was quashed. The wedding was indeed a media massive event, however (I hate to be cynical) I guarantee that world's economic stability nor the lives of many around the world hung in the balance. If the event were terminated, and the world's economy suffered in any way, it would be sad commentary on our society(as a matter of fact, I believe the wedding did damage Britain's economy. I apologizing for my ranting, but that argument has too many loopholes. --Trilobite12 (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC) I agree, I think april 27th is worth noting--76.250.32.72 (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Please, somebody consider what I am saying, I believe it is only fair --Trilobite12 (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

News of the World closure

  • 23:28, 9 July 2011 Trivialist (Talk | contribs) (24,038 bytes) (→July: +last issue of News of the World) (undo)
  • 23:53, 9 July 2011 DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk | contribs) (23,848 bytes) (Undid revision 438657631 by Trivialist (talk)Rvt nn.) (undo)
  • 04:58, 10 July 2011 Honeymanl (Talk | contribs) (24,053 bytes) (→July) (undo)
  • 05:00, 10 July 2011 DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk | contribs) (23,848 bytes) (Undid revision 438692936 by Honeymanl (talk)Rvt nn. Again.) (undo)
  • 15:30, 10 July 2011 MusicGeek101 (Talk | contribs) (24,046 bytes) (→July) (undo)
  • 15:54, 10 July 2011 Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs) (23,848 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by MusicGeek101 (talk): Date of selection is not notable. (TW)) (undo)
  • 17:06, 10 July 2011 Trivialist (Talk | contribs) (24,037 bytes) (→July: re-adding News of the World item; the sudden closing of Britain's biggest selling newspaper over a scandal that has gained worldwide attention seems reasonably notable) (undo)

Will I verify or delete?

It looks like this now:

From 2011 July

Plarem (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers close all the time for many different reasons. The closing of this one has no impact outside the UK therefore it is not internationally notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

- I disagree, because the News of the World has been operating for over a century in Ireland as well. Plarem (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

True, Every single important event that has occurred so far simply can't be placed in this article. I would be inclined to agree with Derby, however there is so much inconsistency in many other pages such as this one. I'm going to play the role of weather geek again, and state that are inconsistencies in natural disaster sections(and may others at that). 2008 is just one example. (News of the World may not be an international paper, but its cessation has implications that reach far beyond Britain). Derby, I think that you need to define what it means for something relevant to the world. --Trilobite12 (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

i disagree - it should be included, the issue is not a paper closing, the issue is a 168 year-old paper closing, not something i would expect happens more than 3 times a year if not less--70.162.171.210 (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Rarity is not an issue, impact is. "has implications that reach far beyond Britain"? Really? What implications other than hot air about the need for more strict enforcing of journalistic standards and maybe one or two additional worthless tabloids shut down? I sincerely wish that something good would come of this scandal, but all the experience screams otherwise. — Yerpo Eh? 06:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Here in Melbourne, Australia it's been front page news. Maybe that's because this is where Rupert Murdoch started life before he turned American, but really, he still has a big slice of tabloid media here. I imagine it's of interest wherever Murdoch tabloids exist. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, notability != international importance. — Yerpo Eh? 09:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Here are a few articles about the closure of the News of the World from RTE, www.news.com.au, BBC, CNN:
It has made its way all around the world, why can't it be added in here? Plarem (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
International notability != international significance.
Large enough now? It's notable, so it deserves an article, which it has. However, this is not enough for inclusion here. Why does this have to be repeated so often? — Yerpo Eh? 09:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Why not?
From WP:RY:
Three-continent rule
New events added must receive independent news reporting from three different continents on the event. This is a minimum requirement for inclusion. Events which are not cited at all, or are not Wikilinked to an article devoted to the event, may be removed.
http://www.news.com.au/business/final-edition-of-britains-news-of-the-world-printed/story-e6frfm1i-1226091576153 – Final edition of Britain's News of the World printed - News.com.au (Australasia)
http://us.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/11/uk.phone.hacking.scandal/index.html?hpt=wo_c2 – Phone-hacking scandal lives on even as News of the World dies - us.cnn.com (America)
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0709/hacking.html – Final edition of News of the World printed - RTE News (Europe)
It has reached its criteria per WP:RY!
Plarem (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
No, it hasn't. In addition, the event must have a demonstrated, international significance. It would benefit this talk page immensely if everyone at least read the guidelines they talk about. The three-continent rule is a bare minimum to even start considering an event for inclusion. — Yerpo Eh? 10:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

News websites of most countries would report a big domestic story like this anyway even though it would be down the list. Ifore2010 (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Then please, point out to me where is that? I can't find it. Plarem (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
It's in the introduction. — Yerpo Eh? 10:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I was just gonna say: 'I found it.' Sorry. Plarem (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, a question to all: Who wants this or thinks it should be added to the list of events? Plarem (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Can the entry read
  1. "Newspapers worldwide stop hacking cellphones after NoTW folds"
  2. "Several countries enact legislation making it illegal for newspapers to hack cellphone accounts after NotW scandal closes newspaper"
  3. "Millions worldwide give up reading newspapers after NotW folds"
  4. "Thousands loses jopbs when newspaper folds"?

NO? Why? Because it is merely WP:News. This article is not about news. It is about the most historically important events of the year. The closing of any newspaper involves the loss of relatively few jobs, mostly in a single country. That this is reported around the world does not indicate any lasting notability, the current speed and spread of news means that anything can be reported almost anywhere. Apart from thje loss of a few hndred jobs (in itself internationally insiginificant) and the inconvenience of some people having to buy a different newspaper (or go without) this has (so far) had no lasting impact on any country outside the UK. That makes it insufficently notable for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Include. You're simply being ridiculous--well, more ridiculous than usual--with your usual fall-back on your narrow, eccentric and context-free interpretation of an arbitrary standard. I suppose you would have excluded the September 11 attacks on the grounds that they only happened in one country. This is part of a scandal involving a large media corporation operating on at least--wait for it--three continents, not some random business closure. If you remove it: if you can't be arsed to inform yourself of the basic background, perhaps you ought not to be commenting on current events. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Exclude : while I agree that news of the world was a big news paper, and I also agree that it was a very old British newspaper, the story has little or no international significance. And in any case, the titles you propose are mostly wrong and sensationalists. FFMG (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Exclude, as per Derby. Calendar, your comment contributed absolutely nothing to the debate, merely restating false arguments, and introducing straw men to boot. Maybe you'd want to start searching for international significance instead of parading spurious connections to Murdoch empire's foreign operations. If the company fell, that would be significant, but I think we all know that it won't happen. Name-calling also doesn't give credit to you or to your argument. — Yerpo Eh? 15:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Include. Ten members of the British royal family including the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall are believed to be among the victims of the News of the World phone hacking affair, News International publications including the News of the World and Sunday Times improperly accessed private information of former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Gordon Brown. And this information was spread all over Britain and Ireland for the tabloid News of the World. Plarem (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that nothing you mentioned here constitutes international impact? — Yerpo Eh? 15:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The United Kingdom is one of the richest countries in the EU. The PM and the Royal Family are part of this monarchy. It is so an international event. Plarem (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
You talk like you were certain that foreign powers acted directly on information spread by NotW to the detriment of the British royal family and the country itself. In that case, it would perhaps be worthy of inclusion, can we have a source now? — Yerpo Eh? 15:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
News of the World is owned by News Inc. (From News of the World)
The News of the World was a national tabloid newspaper published in the United Kingdom from 1843 to 2011, printing its last edition on 10 July 2011. Originally established as a broadsheet by John Browne Bell, the Bells sold to Lascelles Carr in 1891; in 1969 it was bought from the Carrs by Rupert Murdoch's media firm News Ltd. Reorganised into News International, itself a subsidiary of News Corporation, it was transformed into a tabloid in 1984.
News Inc. Area served – Worldwide
It owns newspapers in Australia, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, UK, Ireland and the United States of America. It is an international power that hacked into phones of the UK Government and Royal Family.
Plarem (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
So? What significant consequences did the hacking have, other than the scandal which will only result in Murdoch launching another tabloid (which he was already preparing to) and possibly some lowly scapegoat getting arrested? I wouldn't want to start guessing how many international powers hack into UK government's phone lines on a regular basis. It's called espionage and it's really nothing special, unless something special comes out of it. — Yerpo Eh? 16:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

INCLUDE
Trilobite12
70.162.171.210
Plarem
CalendarWatcher

EXCLUDE
Yerpo
Ifore2010
DerbyCountyinNZ
FFMG

--70.162.171.210 (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The consequences the hacking had were that some information from the past PM of Britain, the current Royal Family and other people's private information released into the tabloid News of the World and the newspaper The Sun, The Irish Sun and The Scottish Sun and through those papers into the world. Plarem (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
As I said, nothing of any lasting importance. Should we report here every time that a tabloid publishes something embarrassing about a member of royalty that was obtained by shady means? A good way for Wikipedia to become a tabloid itself, which I doubt many people would support. — Yerpo Eh? 16:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I am running out of things to say, just can we please get the consensus to add this to 2011 events? -- Plarem (talk | contribs | sandbox) 16:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure, to 2011 in the United Kingdom. The consensus here will require a bit more than failing to convince me, though. Of course others are welcome to add their thoughts. — Yerpo Eh? 17:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
But if there are more people for the adding than the excluding, then this could be added? -- Plarem (talk | contribs | sandbox) 17:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
No, polling is still not a substitute for discussion. This isn't a vote. — Yerpo Eh? 17:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Then why can't this be added to the 2011 page? -- Plarem (talk | contribs | sandbox) 17:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
And please tell me, how do you decide a concensus -- Plarem (talk | contribs | sandbox) 17:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Because it's not internationally significant! Consensus is usually clear, but when it's not or you disagree, you can start by requesting a comment from uninvolved editors. — Yerpo Eh?
Do you need a consensus for the 2011 in the UK? -- Plarem (talk | contribs | sandbox) 17:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Not frequenting those pages, I'm not so familiar with the scope of national year articles, but it would seem to me that this event certainly fits there. It's been listed there since the day the scandal broke out. — Yerpo Eh? 17:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
This is all relevant to how Murdoch will be able to maintain his empire of corporations, and how they fare through this. Murdoch is an international entity, no question about that, and this scandal could possibly do some major damage(not to mention denting his reputation.) http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/11/us-newscorp-lawsuit-idUSTRE76A3LN20110711?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobite12 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure it could happen, but this page isn't a news service and speculations like that doesn't belong here. When "possibly" becomes "it happened", then we can talk. Before that, it's just a guess. It may be difficult to understand, but this page will still be open for editing in 6 months and it is always possible to add the event that led to Murdoch's supposed demise later. If nothing significant happens that would remind people of this event a couple of months from now, it will be an excellent proof that it wasn't really so important. BTW, what reputation? Of being a reckless capitalist? Nope, still strong. — Yerpo Eh? 05:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Three continent rule now redundant

The News of the World phone-hacking scandal shows that big domestic stories that are not even of international importance can be reported in at least almost every country's news websites Ifore2010 (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the wrong place to discuss this, (it should be on the years project).
But I think that the intent of the 'Three continent rule' was for printed frontpages. Online newspaper can print just about anything as they don't space issue, (in fact they want as much info as possible, even if no one cares about it). FFMG (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not completely redundant. Without it, routine bilateral diplomatic visits would be eligible for inclusion. And yes, this should be discussed on the guideline's talk page. — Yerpo Eh? 07:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"Importance"

Considering there has been very little that has been sorted out, I think it would do this article a justice to define what it means for something to be "important"(in the international context). Unfortunately such a definition is very broad and vague. I cannot wrap my mind on how to begin. Let us say for example,a US politician (Gabrielle Giffords) is shot and critically injured. Yes, it occurred in the US, and has no immediate effects on countries outside the US. Conversely, a high ranking US politician has "been shot." Someone who is critical to American political system was affected(not to mention the others who were slaughtered)..... -But why should anyone from the Prague or Tokyo care? She wasn't their politician. This seems to be the reasoning that is stunting this article's growth.

I do not doubt for a second, there are indeed many huge events may unfold at a national level, that have may not direct consequences around the globe. However there is attention vs affliction. Heck, a ton of people died in Haiti last year, why should give a darn? My life was not derailed. And to my knowledge, the world's economy was unaffected. Does it have its place in the 2010 article? Now of course(excuse the preceding sarcasm), my answer is yes without a doubt. In this case, the media plays the greatest role. In Myanmar, Cyclone Nargis killed scored of people, however it was not covered extensively. This is the attention aspect. Delving further into this, one should look at symbolic significance as well. "What does it mean to have to have a vital member of government shot?, And how does if reflect that country in general?"

(I have written this extremely quickly and I suspect there are grammatical errors everywhere0. Also I would like to point out that there is not a singlething directly relating to the continental US in this article. Don't be mistaken, I am reasonable person, and not really nationalistic. However Derby, seeing your page's "Against the Americanization of Wikipedia" leads me to think that there is bit of bias in here. Your standards contradict the material of innumerable other--Trilobite12 (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC) articles.

Actually it's "Against the Americanisation of Wikipedia". Not so much bias against American entries but the over-abundance of non-notable American entries and American idiom (including spelling) which American editors frequently apply to wiki articles though ignorance, arrogance or sheer laziness. I find the attitude of "It's American therefore it's more important than other countries" particularly offensive. Prior to the efforts of user User:Mrwojo there were, to my best recollection, less than 20 Year in the US articles for the years 1800-2009. This meant that some articles included such dross as the first school to be opened in a certain county in a particular state (barely worthy of inclusion in the state's history, far less an international Year article) or the death of Laura Ingalls Wilder's infant brother as a notable Death in a Year article. The 2008 article was so full of internationally non-notable events and deaths that I started to clean it up (it was 86k before the end of June). This led to the establishment of the WP:RY guidelines (largely established by others) which are now used to cover Year articles such as this one. Throughout this I have tried to be totally objective (some might say excessively, but I consider it a more useful attitude to editing a serious enterprise such as wiki that the oppsotie end of the spectrum exhibited by some users). Manyu editors of Recent Year articles, including some regulars, seem to have difficulty comprehending what "objective" means and entails. I have argued for the exclusion of many non-American entries and deaths on the basis that they do not meet the WP:RY guidelines for notability (even when I thought they were more worthy of inclusion than some who met the guidelines but weren't actually that important). Particularly for Deaths I have based my arguments on the content of the person's article not whether I personally think they are notable. Since the establishment of WP:RY, even though I have on a few occasions been "outvoted" by users whose argument is "we think he's important, therefore he should be included", I think you'll find that, contrary to your assertion, the vast majority of my edits to Recent Year articles have actually been supported by regular editors (i.e. those interested in the quality/integrity cf. single issue editors). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Part of the problem lies in that "innumerable other". I've been told many times, often to justify the inclusion of purely American content, that nearly half our readership is American. That's a massive factor to consider in many ways. Should nearly half the content of global style articles, like this one, be purely American? I don't have an obvious answer to that question. America's influence on global media is huge. If a TV news service elsewhere in the world wants content, some is ALWAYS available from America. That's obviously not the case for Myanmar. Some American editors clearly post here as if their audience is all American, and as if what they write does not have to be put into geographical context. Just have a look at the Reference Desks. Several questions a day are written about American institutions, laws, etc, without saying that they are American. We have to ask. That irks non-Americans.
Similar things happened with the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. Many posts were written as if the whole Wikipedia audience already knew 1) who she was, and 2) what had happened to her. It put the backs up of many non-Americans and, in the end, perhaps led to unfair treatment of that item.
On the other hand, because of America's global political and economic impact, what happens inside America obviously can have a bigger impact on world affairs than what happens inside other countries, larger and smaller.
We also at times talk about "in the English speaking world" as some sort of measure of whether something is significant. Why do we restrict ourselves in that way.
Just some thoughts. No strong points intended there. Time for someone else now. HiLo48 (talk)

Don't have time for a comprehensive reply right now, so I will just post a reminder of some underlying assumptions in the Trilobite's post (the issue of which I absolutely agree that it would be necessary to clear up). G. Gifford's is an excellent example to begin with, having been completely unknown to the rest of the world before the assassination attempt. Trilobite says she is "critical to American political system" and a "vital member of government". But is she really? Did the government stop functioning because of this event? Were federal laws passed to deal with this issue? Do mainstream media still feature it extensively in their programs? Did the US authorities track the assassin's connection abroad and strike the offending country with their political and/or military might? Or is she more or less as unheard of as before? It's without doubt that the USA is a major global power and that events there are more likely to influence world affairs, but including every headline news from the country among the most important events in a year because of that is spurious in extreme. Not being a news service here, we can afford to wait for the events to unfold completely when in doubt. Before you call this list stunted, though, note that it's 25 KB in size already and we still have half a year to go. — Yerpo Eh? 06:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(I also have little time, I just would like to apologize to Derby, if I have been singling him out). You have all paid close attention to some my oversights, for which I appreciate. One of which being that the American media is unfairly biased towards America. Yes, it's also true that Giffords may not have been as a essential as I made her out to be. There is indeed a huge bias in general, towards the United States. Derby, I do not believe that if something is American, then it is more important. On the other hand, I will again point out the inconsistencies in other articles. I think if Yerpo, and Derby are to prune the articles of what they think are unimportant events, it is fair that the same is done about the many other yearly articles

However, I have only requested one thing to be added to the list, which was the tornado outbreak that occurred this April. This was solely the reason why I entered this conversation. All these other debates, have deviated me from my original arguments. Rio de Janeiro flooding I agree is important, however one has a higher death toll, and one has a higher economic toll. My only request, it that tornado outbreak be added, not from American bias, but from sheer magnitude of the disaster. I do believe the outbreak deserve mentioning because: -It was the largest outbreak in world history since record keeping began

-It was the costliest outbreak since record keeping began

-One of the deadliest outbreaks since record keeping began


Now looking at from a national scale:


-It was the third deadliest outbreak in American history

-The outbreak was the third deadliest in disaster in general for several decades

-It now ranks among costliest disasters.

I really ask for your consideration. I cannot stand to look at 2011, and not see this mentioned. And if there is another disaster that occurs that is large enough,(anywhere else in the world), I will see to it that the disaster has at least some consideration. --Trilobite12 (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be greatly appreciated if someone would respond. Please editors, stop ignoring this!--Trilobite12 (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There are several problems with this being notable.
  1. There is no international impact as the scale of this disaster does not require any international assistance or impact in any other way on any other country.
  2. This is not a rare event as tornadoes are an annual event in the US.
  3. Being the "third deadliest" and "most costliest" are only a transient superlatives and they are specifically US related not world in terms.
  4. The only criteria left for inclusion would be the number of deaths, but even though I have tried several times to establish minimum numbers for various types of disaster there are still none. I suspect a minimum of 100 deaths would be too low, 200 might be sufficient but that would mean the May 22 does not qualify. Up to users to decide on a figure, if they can be bothered. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes tornadoes may be an annual events, but outbreaks these larges are not by any means. Outbreaks this massive are quite rare, and its magnitude was unprecedented. To be honest you seem to be treading on unfamiliar territory I also do not see how the floods meet the standards you have just mentioned. Granted, I do think they deserve mentioning, however they are inconsistent with your criteria. I know some articles in the past were not done as meticulously as this one, however I see events such as tornado outbreaks much smaller than this one, being mentioned constantly. --Trilobite12 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Not wishing to vehemently shoot your proposal down, because you obviously feel strongly about the issue, I'm not absolutely against inclusion, but would only consider it if it is phrased in terms of the record-bearing aspect - i.e. the outbreak being the strongest and costliest ever. Judging by this list, it is not merely the costliest, but the costliest by far. However, I'd wish to see a good reference that it was the costliest and the largest in the world history, not merely the US history. — Yerpo Eh? 06:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good point, as tornadoes do occur all over the world. It is difficult to locate fine damage estimates for tornado damage outside the US and Europe. However in Europe, according to [|this], officially, the costliest single European tornado cost approx. 25 million USD. (However in 1984 a very violent one struck the suburbs of Moscow, and I would not surprised if the cost of this one exceeded the one in Germany) This Several magnitudes lower then the costliest US tornadoes. Though is an estimate for a single tornado, one could infer that the damage from other outbreaks are probably less. The [[2]] website states that in the UK, the largest outbreak included 105 tornadoes(very weak ones) According to the Tornado climatology wiki page, the European continent has on average 170 tornado touchdowns per year. If this is indeed the case, then an imaginary European outbreak larger tornado outbreak in April, would have to include more tornadoes than Europe sees on average. Tornadoes are also are relatively frequent event in Eastern India and in Bangladesh. A Bangladeshi tornado killed as much as 2000 people 1989. As for cost and number of tornadoes, there are really no firm estimates that I can access. The tornado in Bangladesh was so lethal because of inadequate housing, so its cost may not be as high as one would imagine. I apologize, I could not find any actual lists. However, it is logical to assume that this tornado outbreak was indeed the largest since weather records began. US tornadoes usually dwarf other tornadoes both in size and in numbers because of the ideal geographical area in which they occur.

(The response to this disaster was not exclusive to the United State either, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/05/japan-sends-tornado-relief-supplies-alabama/ )--Trilobite12 (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this being the costliest tornado diaster in the United States is that there is no economic effect on any other country as the US economy can deal with it without outside help. Also being the costliest does not account for inflation, a percentage of GDP might be a better gauge. I still feel that the only way to establish notability in such a case is the econimc or legal/politic impact on other countries or by it exceeded a minimum number of deaths (which could be applied to a single tornado or a tornado outbreak). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again Derby, what you say may be true, but you have failed time and time again to explain how the floods mentioned in the article are compatible with your criteria. Please, you may have a valid argument, I would like to hear it. --Trilobite12 (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I've commented on the inclusion of the Brazilian landslide as an example of what should be included. In any case WP:Otherstuff isn't a valid argument. I recall that I wasn't sure if it should be included because 800 deaths might not be especially significant, but I can't check everything! If you would like to start a discussion regarding its possible removal go ahead. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I will not against its exclusion, I think it should be in here. However,what I was attempting to convey earlier past arguments, is that definition that you are seeking apropos with importance, can be subjective. I think it is fair and fitting for record breaking disasters to mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobite12 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that at this point, the outbreak can only be phrased as "the costliest and maybe the largest in US history" and that is insufficient grounds for inclusion. As you demonstrated above, trying to do more is original research. If it was really the world's largest, I'm sure some analyst will mention it soon, then I will be all for inclusion, but as it is now, it's a bit too tenuous for my taste. I'm willing to change my mind if there's just some simple mathematical logic behind, though, such as a well sourced list of the costliest Asian tornado outbreaks with #1 behind this one.
BTW, it's true that some smaller-scale disasters are listed in other year articles, but the grounds for their inclusion are that respective countries aren't able to deal with consequences themselves and significant foreign aid is necessary. — Yerpo Eh? 07:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I will accept that as of now, that it cannot not be included. However, I guarantee that in the near future, I will find some source that will say that it is indeed the largest in history. It is no doubt the costliest, and I almost positive it is the largest. So, until I can find something that backs me up, I will grudgingly agree to its exclusion. --Trilobite12 (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The Space Shuttle program

I think the today's end of one significant space-faring era would deserve mentioning on this year's list, what does everybody think? — Yerpo Eh? 15:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur, it does deserve mentioning --Trilobite12 (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Many important events are missing!

Hello everyone

I am a long time Wikipedia reader,and a recent contributor.

I see this article on 2011 as pretty poor.Many important events are missing,for example the arrest of former Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo after months of standoff,the plane crash in Iran where 37 surivied and the rest died,the worst drought in Australia's history,the New Zealand earthquake which is a major disaster in that country,and many more are missing.

2011 is a eventful year,but the article is so sparse compared with previous years,it is actually quite pathetic.

Arguing over how Japan's earthquake is notable and not New Zealand's is quite foolish.Both should be listed in the events.

Plus events regarding the Arab Protests should make mention of the beginning of the ciris.For example when NATO started bombing Libya,it should be mentioned how all this started.Same with the President of Yemen being injured,two sentences should precede it telling readers what is behind all this.For example how Yemen has seen protests since January.The Syrian protests should be mentioned,even though to dste there has been no regime change.This is a long five month protest,not a protest that lasted short while.Even then the protests in Spain and Greece,while not as long as Syria,should be mentioned.There is NOTHING wrong with having these events mentioned.

Hope to hear from you,I am seriously considering placing these events,because this article is pretty poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElrodeoLover (talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines for including entries in recent year (i.e. c. 2003 >> ) at WP:RY. If you feel the guidelines need change please start a discussion there. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I just have to say, "the worst drought in Australia's history" ended two years ago. Flooding has been more of a problem for the past twelve months. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign my name

The above comment is by me

ElrodeoLover,July 22,2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElrodeoLover (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt/Tucson shootings

Davidbehman84 (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC) January 8, 2011- This event needs to be added, this was an event that shocked a nation, and captivated it. Gabrielle Giffords has become America's Congresswoman. Also, the assassination attempt on a member of the US Congress is an very rare event. Let's add this event, it will be remembered for decades to come.

This has already been discussed here. The clear consensus was to exclude. It may have "shocked a nation", but this is an international page and this event is insufficiently notable internationally (as outlined in the previous discussion). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I can appreciate the anti-American sentiment, I understand that. However, I had to laugh at "insufficiently notable internationally" when I saw some of the international events (that were actually local events with very little international appeal) that were listed in 2009 and 2010. I dare say if the Giffords shooting happened in Europe or Asia it would be accepted as an international story.

This is not anti-American sentiment on display. I would be anti-anything that was only significant in one country. Some of us here are, however, very alert to US-centrism, which is something very different. I wouldn't have the gall to suggest inclusion of something that only affected my country. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

An American shot Americans in the US. That a politician was critically wounded makes it notable in the US, and worthy of inclusion on 2011 in the United States, but it does not have any effect or notablity outside the US. Excluding this event is not anti-American; this kind of event wouldn't qualify for inclusion in a recent year article no matter where in the world it happened. 188.29.29.76 (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What about the assassination attempt on George Wallace in 1972? It is on the 1972 page and it remains a textbook example of the bias here. I feel like whoever asserts that the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords shouldn't be on here thinks the US receives too much attention, and is trying to nitpick out every "US Centric" event on here.

Governor < Member of Congress...Not to mention some 15 other people who were killed, only Wallace was shot in '72. 98.228.231.176 (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

1972 is not a Recent Year and is not covered by the WP:RY guidelines. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
As an Australian, in a time when global communication was a lot less effective than now, I know who George Wallace was. His anti-integration stance gained him global notoriety. Giffords is an unknown to the world outside the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I, (and many others), are trying to go back and clean up previous year articles but it takes time. It looks like no one has done 1972 yet, (you are welcome to do it).
If real life ever allows me to, I will clean up 1972 and remove entries that do not meet the newer WP:RY guidelines.
Entries like "January 7 - Howard Hughes speaks by telephone to denounce Clifford Irving's supposed biography of him." clearly show that it does not meet the current guidelines. FFMG (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. So you're saying that the attempted murder of Giffords did not "receive independent news reporting from three different continents on the event"? While the fates of former leaders of the Ivory Coast and Northern Rhodesia may be interesting, it's pretty odd to say that an attack on a significant leader in a state with a higher GDP than many states in the European Union, let alone the world, doesn't deserve mention. Nevard (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The international coverage on 3 continents requirement is only one criteria, usually the minmum. However, the event must be more than just news to be included. There are no international implications from this shooting therefore it is not internationally notable and does not deserve inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not serious news like "Former Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo is arrested". People actually noticed. Nevard (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This event being held off the 2011 page is a classic example of anti-American sentiment. Please look at "international" events in recent years; On January 3, 2008, 4 people were killed in a car bomb in Turkey. On April 26,2007, Riots in Estonia about moving the Bronze Soldier claim one life... how is this more of an international story than an attempted assassination on a member of Congress and 6 others killed? There are plenty of other examples, but I hope I made my point. I'm not indicating that these listed are not international events, but I am saying that the Giffords shooting and subsequent mass shooting is at least on par with those events. Also, when Giffords photo was recently released, there was international coverage of the photo release, in the UK, Germany, Canada, among other international newspapers; and that was just the release of a photograph. Please do the right thing and add this Giffords story to the 2011 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.244.81 (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a classic example of WP:OTHERSTUFF and therefore irrelevant for this debate. Go ahead and remove the events you mention if you believe that they don't merit inclusion among the most important events in their respective years, but please don't spout nonsense about anti-american sentiment. Just look at year articles from a couple of decades back (1956 for example). There's so much local American cruft in those that your argument sounds silly at best. All in all, the examples you mention (and the one I do) merely signify that some year articles still need to be cleaned up. — Yerpo Eh? 16:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You say what you will, but if this event had happened in a western European nation it would have been included, and nobody would be debating it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.115.12 (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish! There are some of us who are sufficiently objective to evalute the merits of any entry without considering which country is concerned. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Look, I want you to direct me to the page with these "No 'U.S Centric' Events" guidelines so I have proof. I also want you to take into consideration that no matter what you try to do, Wikipedia is based in the U.S. and will always have more information pertaining to the US. Think back to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in 2007. That had no effect on me in the US, but it's included. What about the Chernobyl disaster in 1986? That only affected that region, you never take things off because they are "U.K. Centric", or "Russia Centric". The 9/11 attacks had little effect in some areas of the globe and they aren't whining about it's inclusion. Just suck it up and realize that you are wrong here and it absolutely deserves inclusion, anyone who agrees with me, please add a comment...I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here. 98.228.231.176 (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
From WP:RY:

" Disasters, assasinations, and other crimes Disasters of a global or near-global significance may be added. The importance of these disasters can be demonstrated through various international news sources. High death counts do not necessarily merit inclusion into the article. Likewise, assassinations or other similarly serious crimes can be listed if international relevance is demonstrated. Events such as suicide-murders, kidnappings, school shootings, etc. do not necessarily qualify unless especially significant."

Note the bit "...if international relevance is demonstrated". No international relevance of the attempted assassination of Giffords has been demonstrated (NEWS does NOT equal relevance). Just being in the U.S. doesn't making it internationally relevant. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, maybe it would have been included "if this event had happened in a western European nation". That's because mass shootings are far less common there. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. Only 6 deaths is no longer notable, even outside the US and even if a minor politician is injured during the course of it. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There are many examples in the last 5 years, and beyond -- events outside the US -- that are in the yearly pages, with less deaths and NO international signifigance. My favorite being April 26, 2007. How does that event outweigh the Giffords assassination attempt and subsequent mass shooting??? I am done with this debate. We could literally clean out every year to a couple of entries or less to meet the guidelines of international relevance. That's the truth. There are many students that use Wikipedia as a study guide (I'm not endorsing that method of studying... just stating a fact), therefore, it's a good thing to have more information than not on the yearly pages. It is pure crap that it won't be added to the 2011 page. Truthfully, much love and peace to everyone though, whether you agree with me or not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.115.12 (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This shooting isn't included here, but is included on 2011 in the United States, because it has no effect outside the country it took place in. The September 11 attacks caused deaths of about three thousand people from many countries, a major increase in security around the world and made stock markets crash. The Chernobyl disaster caused pollution severe enough to poison crops in several countries. Those two are major internation events and are rightly included. 188.29.131.49 (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

After noticing that the July 22 Norway tragedy has been added to the yearly page, I must submit that the Attempted Assassination of Gabrielle Giffords and the subsequent mass shooting should be added to the yearly page. There is no less international relevance from the tragedy in Tucson to the tragedy in Oslo. Both stories are tragedies and both stories should be added to the 2011 page. Please do not keep the Giffords shooting off the 2011 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.115.12 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I 100% agree. Please add it, and if anyone other than DerbyCountyNZ objects then re=open the discussion, the evidence presented here is far to compelling to ignore and easily overwrites the policies, this is absolutely an anti-American bias. Just put it in. 98.228.231.176 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
What a stupid post. Many people in addition to Derby have already objected in this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Storms (again)

I will to continue to argue for its inclusion, on the grounds that many records were indeed shattered,:

I do have expert insight on this issue. I emailed a NOAA meteorologist, though he was not comfortable with me mentioning his name, here is what he said. There is currently no reliable worldwide tornado ranking system, so it is difficult to compare what happens across the U.S. in terms of tornadoes to what is happening in other places around the world.

-However, the U.S. is unique in that it experiences more tornadoes yearly than every other country across the world combined. Other places around the world do experience tornadoes every year, but no where near the numbers we see here in the United States. This has to do with the location of the Rocky Mountains and the Gulf of Mexico and the weather patterns that occur between them

(he gave me list of links that virtually the same as I provided)

Given the information above, we cannot say that the April tornado outbreaks were the 'biggest in world' with any certainty. But given the lack of tornado activity in other countries around the world, it is likely that the April tornado outbreak is at least one of the biggest ever, if not the biggest. That statement is definitely an assumption, but it is an assumption that is grounded in historical statistics.

So, considering that the US has so many tornadoes, it is very logical to say this was the largest. There is some uncertainly however, because detailed meteorological records have existed until recently. Though, it is clear that is outbreak is the biggest since record keeping began. And is very illogical(not completely impossible) to think any outbreak outside the US in recent years trumped this one. This may be an assumption, but it's "grounded in historical statistics"

This is definitely worth noting If you all speak of record breaking as a requirement, this outbreak shattered records. I know the editors of this page mean the best, however please it makes no sense that it is not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.32.72 (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC) --Trilobite12 (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Norway attacks are not of international relevance -- needs to be removed

The anti-American bias continues. When I heard about the tragedy in Norway, I knew it would make the 2011 general page. If this event had taken place in Detroit, Kansas City, Houston...etc. it would not have made the yearly page. I was told when debating the Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt and subsequent mass shooting that loss of life should not matter in consideration of whether or not an event would be added to the yearly page. This attack in Norway, although tragic, has no affect on anyone outside of Norway. Yes, it was covered on at least 3 continents by news outlets, but so was the Giffords tragedy. This tragic crime appears to have been committed by one lone madman and has NO INTERNATIONAL SIGNIFIGANCE AT ALL. This event should be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbehman84 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

One of my reasons for suggesting the Tucson shootings were less notable was that mad men doing dumb things with guns is, sadly, a relatively common thing in the USA. It's quite rare in Norway. In the long term, the Norway event will probably have little impact outside Norway, just as the Giffords incident had little impact outside the USA. (It's silly to say "no impact". There will always be relatives and friends in other countries.) The fact that this event happened in a country without a strong gun culture is significant. HiLo48 (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Both events are tragic and noteworthy. The Norway Attacks could result in a change to the government as can the Arizona shootings. (Imagine if Congresswomen Giffords or her husband run for the Senate seat and win.) When someone tries to kill a member of Congress, it is noteworthy. When someone murders almost 100 people in a country where it hasn't happen since WWII, it is noteworthy. user:mnw2000 19:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
There's a big difference between your justifications there. The Norway one is justified by real historical context, the US one only by speculation about what it "could" mean. We can't use speculation to justify Wikipedia postings. HiLo48 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The bottome line is OUTSIDE OF NORWAY, this attack will not be anymore historically relevant than the attempted assassination of a US member of congress and the mass shooting that followed. The Giffords shooting deserves to be on the 2011 page, if it does not, then the Norway tragedy doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.115.12 (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The Norway shooting is easily the largest ever mass shooting by a single gunman in recorded history. This makes it far more notable than killings of "only" 15 people or less. That it appears to have been carried out by a lone individual, rather than as part of e.g al-Quaeda or Taliban also makes it notworthy. My feeling is that any such attack with a death toll of >100 should be considered notable regardless of location or motive. This is close enough to that figure to be seriously considered for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
your logic would seems sound but i have a different reason for it to be included - yes large numbers died but large numbers were true in Tucson also - the reason for inclusion is "paradox" - that so many lives could be heinously affected by a single other life--70.162.171.210 (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Large numbers of deaths were not involved in Tucson, unless 6 is considered "large". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me. How often does is a member of the US Congress get shot and almost killed? Regardless of what happens after the event, the event itself was unique, just as the Norway events are. The number of deaths should not be the key factor (though it will probably be in the in the list of massacres). Remember, in 1993 "only" six people were killed in the first WTC attack. I think we would all agree that was a major event that would have been on the 1993 article in Wikipedia, if Wikipedia existed. user:mnw2000 22:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The fact remains, this tragedy in Norway has the same qualities, in terms of INTERNATIONAL RELEVANCE, as does the Giffords shooting. Neither story has much affect outside the nation in which it took place and both stories were covered on more than three continents. That is the bottom line. So either the Giffords shooting does deserve to be on the 2011 page or the Norway tragedy should be removed. Please be fair and legitimate about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.115.12 (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for either inclusion or exclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
And again (I wish I didn't have to repeat myself), unfortunately, shootings of innocent people are far more common in the USA than in Norway. That does make the Norway event of greater international note. HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
And again! The location is irrelevant, it is the scale of the event which is notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
DerbyCountyinNZ, you need to get over your petty jealousy of the USA. Either put Giffords in, or take Norway out, you are a hypocrite and there is plenty of YOUR written evidence to support that statement. I don't give a hoot about your policies, this is ridiculous. Your options based on your "international relevance" policy is to take out the Norway bombing, or add the Giffords shooting. This is unfair and unjust that two major tragedies are being stereotyped by where they occur. Humans are humans, terrorist attacks are terrorist attacks, and you, nor the website, have the right to dishonor the victims of the 2011 Tucson shooting, or pretend that you have the power to judge what affected who. HOW DARE YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.231.176 (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Although I disagree with Derby re the location, I certainly agree re the scale. It's 7 versus something like 97 deaths. If you think 7 is enough, is 3 enough? One? None, but an attempt by a poorly skilled nutter? The US one is obviously a smaller incident. HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, the tragedy in Norway is of much larger scale than Arizona. I honestly hate to talk of any massacre in such a dry and empirical terms, but the attack in Norway does put things into perspective;

  • 7 deaths in Oslo-Major city with PM being affected
  • 80+ in Utøya-Most casualties ever dealt by a single shooter
  • One man is responsible for all of it

If this had not happened, I would continue to argue in favor of the Giffords shooting. However, I will admit to it being smaller scale. Though neutrality aside, it is sad business when it becomes necessary to prioritize any massacre(in the context of wikipedia). If any person dies such a manner as this one, it is a tragedy in my opinion. --Trilobite12 (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point. Unfortunately, you are missing the point. The purpose of the yearly pages, I have been told, is to note events or happenings of international relevance. Now, neither story will have much actual effect on any other nation outside of where these tragedies happened, the United States and Norway. Both tragedies where covered heavily on more than 3 continents. That's a fact. Knowing all of that, I can see that the Norway event should be added to the 2011 page, but so should the Tucson event. It's not as if we have to have one or the other. In terms of international signifigance, there is no difference between these two terrible tragedies. All I am requesting; fairness in this spectrum. Unfortunately, I don't have the ability to add the Giffords shooting to January 8th, even when I am logged in. I am asking the powers that be to recognize the equal signifigance of these two tragedies and add the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords and the following shooting to the 2011 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.115.12 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
If you think 7 is enough, is 3 enough? One? None, but an attempt by a nutter who is a lousy shot?

Any person who claims responsibility for mass murder(or murder in general) is more than just a "nutter" If you ask me, Anders Behring Breivik is more of nutter than Jared Lee Loughner. Not to excuse his actions any way, but he sports a severe psychological/neurological disorder. Anders, had his own deluded reasoning. It is quite easy to see, that tempers are flaring. There is huge personal component to this article. So many are up in arms over this page because there is fear certain events may be downplayed. The prevailing view certain people's minds, is that if it is not on the 2011 page, then it has been deemed unimportant. It is quite easy to be offended by this article, to be frank. Many Americans(and know most who want its inclusion are Americans), are very offended. Myself not included, but I can understand why. One must keep in mind that there were two other politicians who were killed in the shooting. The Gifford's shooting was a tragedy and nothing less. If the shooting is not included, its value is not diminised. Wikipedia however informative, is not perfect. I think that it would be helpful to see a list of what is required for an event to become part of this article, considering it is exceedingly difficult to be completely neutral in this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobite12 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Tuscon shootings and the Norway attacks are notable within their respective countries, but not notable outside them. This article is about internationally notable events, hence neither qualify for inclusion. Death toll is irrelevant, and inclusion is nothing to do with honouring / dishonouring, nor is it about respect or the value of anyone. Which part of the world an event occurred in and how unusual it is are irrelevant to whether or not they should be included. Each of these events was carried out by a lone individual, not an international terrorist group. There is nothing international about these events. 31.64.38.134 (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing allowed?

I checked and it appears as though I can access the edit page. Is my computer deceiving me, or can one add material with caution?--Trilobite12 (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 65.87.42.240, 28 July 2011

In the events, I believe that the tornado outbreak in the United States South from April 25-28 should be included, due to its now historic status and the massive amount of damage it caused. Seeing as the Japan earthquake and Brazil landslide was included, the historic outbreak should be noted.

65.87.42.240 (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. When you make a suggestion to change a page like this, you need to provide the text you want the editor to add, as well as sources to cite for the addition. --Darkwind (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for April 25-28th Tornado Outbreak as well,

I apologize if the editors think I am being an annoyance, however this s something that certainly needs mentioning I will not use the WP:Otherstuff argument or whatever it is called, but several other events in this article to pertain to the rest of the world, if that is what is required. Let me say, I believe the shooting in Norway does deserve a place in the article, however it does not have immediate economic impacts outside the Norway. It is present in the article only because of "record numbers of people being killed," and I can argue for the outbreak's inclusion on similar grounds. The tornado outbreak's status as the largest recorded, is being confirmed by climatologists and meteorologists, http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/2011_tornado_information.html

It's premature to think any other tornado outbreak around the world in recent years could be larger. We will never know if in fact there are any others that were larger, because records did not exist exist far back. If the editors want, I can procure even more information to validate my arguments. If I need to state precisely how it needs to be phrased, I would put; April 27- The largest recorded single day tornado outbreak strikes the southern US, with Alabama being the most affected. Over 300 killed, total damage costs exceeding 10 billion USD.


--Trilobite12 (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What's disturbing about that post is that it took me more than halfway through to work out what you were talking about. You have such a myopic view of the tornado event yourself that you didn't even feel the need to use the word tornado until well into your claim. I had no idea what "Outbreak Again" (your caps) in the heading meant. I seriously thought that maybe there was a new version of the movie "Outbreak". I suggest you step back a little and try to see this from the perspective of people for whom the event is not so major. Once you think about rewording it so that it's immediately clear to others what you're talking about, maybe you can present a more objective case. HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(There, I fixed it) I have little time to write these sections(span of couple minutes at most), and I was under the assumption that others had been following my arguments prior to this one(such as yourself) and if you had, you would know what I was talking about. When I titled the section "Outbreak Again," It was in response to the previous request the outbreak. True, I was not specific enough, and I apologize for that. Looking back adding "I would really like to add this", did sound rather self centered, but not what I intended. However, I do not consider this as a "mytopic" matter as you suggest. This was a petty criticism on your part, and the only reason that you see my arguments as subjective, is because of grammatical errors. "I suggest you step back a little and try to see this from the perspective of people for whom the event is not so major." What more needs to be said after saying that? To those of whom who are not concerned with this, well... this is not concerning. It is that simple. I can guarantee you that there many who very unconcerned with even events of even the greatest international significance, and do not feel affected. I cannot tell with any certainty, but to me at least it sounds like you feel as obligated to lash out at me in response to what you said about the shootings in Norway. I wont say that I wasn't a bit irked when I responded, and for that I am sorry. I have no quarrel with you, and wish to continue to discussing in an objective manner. --Trilobite12 (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If the event is indeed as record-shattering as your research suggests, then I would of course support the inclusion, but I'm still concerned about the phrasing and verifiability. Take a look how I think it could be put (and what would happen a couple of minutes after it was put):
As you see, most of the specific claims can only be phrased as "one of the [superlative]... in US history", which is a bit thin on itself. However, I did stumble upon a reference for the scale - the Encyclopedia Britannica article which says it was the largest. The claim is not very specific, but I think Britannica is authoritative enough (and John P. Rafferty isn't just some random non-specialized writer like most of us is) that we can rely on it. Thoughts? — Yerpo Eh? 06:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you got it spot on. I appreciate your openness to this proposal. --Trilobite12 (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I find these requests hard to understand as well, what was it the most of? What are we supposed to add here?
Did it cause the most death? No, not according to Wikipedia, this outbreak, (in total), did not cause what some single tornadoes did.
But even in the US, this was not the deadliest, in the 1930s there was +300 and +400 fatalities in two separate events. In 1925 there was +700 fatalities!
Was it the largest outbreak? Again, not according to Wikipedia, the 2011 outbreak had 335 confirmed, but the 2004 outbreak had 385, the 2003 outbreak had 401+.
So I fail to see why this would be a world first, let alone a US first. FFMG (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Look again and get your facts straight, that May outbreak spanned over 12 days. That was an outbreak sequence, not one single tornado outbreak. The outbreak that occurred this April now holds the record for the most tornadoes in a 24 hour period. As a matter-of-fact, 260 tornadoes touched down just on April 27th, which smashes the 1974 Super Outbreak. The May sequence was large, however not nearly as notable as the one this April. In region were tornado alertness is priority, 300+ deaths is pretty alarming. In addition, this is now the costliest tornado outbreak by far and now ranks among the costliest US natural disasters. Once again, that it is premature to think that this outbreak is smaller than an unnamed outbreak that occurred in some unnamed region of the world. The weather conditions are just too perfect in the US. In the span written history it is not impossible, however since meteorological records began, I can comfortably say that it pretty much is. (Some of the wiki articles regarding these tornado events can be misleading and are not up to date)

--Trilobite12 (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again your reply is confusing? Those are not my facts as you put it, (and please, try and remain civil), this is what the articles here say. They say that this was not the deadliest or the biggest outbreak, (they also don't talk about 12 days but rather 3 or 4 days, where did you get 12 days?). If you think those articles are wrong then I suggest you update them first.
In any case, it was not the deadliest in the US, and it was not the deadliest in the world. So, once again, I am not sure under what criteria you would like it included.
If cost is the criteria you wish to use, then it is also not the highest, (maybe it is in the US, I am not sure). So, while I fully agree that the outbreak was terrible, it had no impact outside the US, was not the deadliest or largest outbreak in the world, (or in the US). FFMG (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(I will keep this civil, and I apologize for that remark. Sometimes, I can be terrible at sounding sincere online, even when I am. I will also change those articles accordingly) Those two other "outbreaks" that you mentioned, are not exactly the same as single tornado outbreak. Rather, they consisted of several outbreaks that spanned days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_outbreak_sequence Both those outbreaks sequences you had mentioned, did last well over a week. Also, tornado sequences do not necessarily have to be associated with the same weather system. Very frequently, a succession of storm systems are responsible for the sequences. A single low pressure system was responsible for the outbreak in April. , It is improper to say that that outbreak sequence was bigger. Outbreaks consist of tornadoes, and sequences consist of tornado outbreaks. So, Outbreaks and sequences are indeed different. I hate to bring my life into the picture, but given the occupation of many family members of mine, I have access to many sources that can validate my statements--Trilobite12 (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC) --Trilobite12 (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, I must admit that I am still confused as to what you want to add here. You mentioned 12 days of tornado activity, but the article(s) do not see to back this. You mentioned the death and number of tomatoes, but again, this is not in the various articles.
You mention that it is the deadliest and biggest outbreak, but then you add that it is not comparable to other bigger/deadlier outbreaks in the US and around the world.
Not been familiar with tornadoes/tornado outbreaks I fail to see what is so different with this particular outbreak, (from an international point of view as well as from a US point of view). FFMG (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I never said it was the deadliest outbreak, it is now one of the deadliest however(in US history). Again, the outbreak is now the costliest in world history now. If you meant that I said that the April outbreak spanned over 12 days, then that is not the case. It spanned over three, with the vast majority occurring on one day. Yes, all the articles on outbreak sequences do mention mention there length. If you look at the "list of tornadoes" page for the 2003 sequence, you will find that the most tornadoes that touched down on one day was less than 90. 260 tornadoes in one day is extremely significant, there were also 5 EF5 tornadoes in this outbreak, which are typically observed once per year in the US(there were none in the sequences you mentioned)Internationally this April outbreak still significant amongst other tornado outbreaks, because no larger outbreaks have ever been recorded. To give you an idea of the scale of the outbreak, Europe sees only 170 tornadoes in an entire year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_climatology There is absolutely no evidence that exists to refute the claim that this outbreak is largest since meteorological records began. In terms of deadliest individual tornadoes, Bangladesh wins. Conditions can favor some destructive tornadoes in that vicinity. However, the casualties are a result of extremely poor preparation and housing. Keep in mind once again, the southern states affected by this are quite prepared, and yet many people still died. More disturbingly(even though the Tuscaloosa suburbs were hit by an EF4), the majority of EF5 tornadoes missed the most populated areas.

As for True tornado outbreaks, they should not be compared to outbreak sequences, because sequences can involve multiple weather systems or long periods of time. A single tornado outbreak is caused by one single weather system, in a limited amount of time, in the same general area. Say an upper level disturbance moves in one day and spawns tornadoes, moves out, then cold front moves in the next day(and affects the same region) and does the same-that is an outbreak sequence. Now granted, there may be one or several ambient factor involved, like unusually high CAPE values or jet stream position, but because they can be purely coincidental, they are not typically as noteworthy. It is possible for one storm to race across the US and spawn a many tornadoes over many days, but unless in one day it produces unbelievable numbers of tornadoes, it is not one for the record books. It's much easier one for system to produce tornadoes over a prolonged period of time, than it is for one to produce many in one day. If one of the storm system produces many tornadoes, then that is when they become the most notable. Though sequences can indeed be large and destructive, they are not as regarded in the meteorological community, because the definition of a sequence is an unbroken period of activity. The wiki article is correct in saying that they "dominate the statistics" This is simply because sequence are common.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_outbreak_sequence Because sequences can be just an unfortunate succession of storm systems, they should not be compared to a single massive outbreak.(the April outbreak had almost the same amount as even the largest sequence) --Trilobite12 (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is getting repetitive and tiresome. A tornado outbreak is meteorolgically interesting but not internationally notable, it belongs in 2011 in meteorolgy (if someone could be bothered to create it) or 2011 in science not [[2011], that is what sub-categories are for. That this outbreak was the costliest (is that inflation adjusted?) in US history is not internationally notable. That it was the costliest in world history is not internationally notable if the entire cost is borne by the US. That the US has annual tornado outbreaks means that any one outbreak is not especially notable, they happen every year, some years are worse than others. The frequency and predictability of a country specific event reduces its notability. The only questions as to whether this event should be included are whether the number of deaths is sufficiently great to be internationally notable and/or whether an outbreak should be considered notable (what limits should be placed on an outbreak? what next, we have the "worst ever" over 3 days; 5 days; 1 week; 1 month?). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Surgeons carry out first synthetic windpipe transplant". BBC. BBC. 7 July 2011. Retrieved 8 July 2011.
  2. ^ "South Sudan: New nation". BBC. BBC. 9 July 2011. Retrieved 9 July 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011/Archive_3&oldid=1084061510"