Jump to content

Talk:2011/Archive 4

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

Request for US Storms April 25-28

I agree with the other people on here who believe that the US storms should be included on the list. Multiple records were broken during the storms during April and May in 2011, as below: 1) The preliminary estimate by the National Weather Service for the number of tornadoes in 2011 is 1,475, the previous record being held in 2004 at 1,817, which would bring 2011 to a close second for number of tornadoes per year. 2) The death toll of both the Joplin tornado and the April storms comes to a total of 546, the deadliest year for tornadoes since modern recordkeeping began in 1950 and the deadliest year for tornadoes since 1936. 3) The deadliest tornado since recordkeeping began (Joplin, MO, with 151 tornadic deaths) 4) 2011 is ranked as the sixth deadliest year for tornadoes in recorded history, which includes pre-1950 years when weather reports were unreliable or sometimes even nonexistent, and tornadic deaths were relatively common and warnings were rare 5) April 2011 is ranked as the most active tornado month on record, with 875 tornadoes compared to May 2003's previous record of 542 tornadoes 6) April 27th is the fourth single deadliest day for tornadoes, with 314 confirmed casualties

Although not a confirmed record, the large amount of EF5 tornadoes confirmed by the NWS this year--six total, compared to one in 2009 and 2007 and no other recorded or confirmed EF5 tornadoes from 1999-2007--is unusual, as well as four of the six recorded on April 27.

65.87.42.240 (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

All these records are for the US. This article is for internationally notable events, just being a US record does not mean it is automatically internationally notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned earlier, all those 'records' are US centric, but, even in the US, the outbreak was not the deadliest/biggest. FFMG (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Not done: See comments above. Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This was the biggest outbreak ever recorded, however you are correct in saying it was not the deadliest. If everyone is so opposed to inclusion, fine, reject it and I will accept. However, if the tornado outbreak is not acceptable, then I see no reason why the flooding in Brazil should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobite12 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue of disasters is highly emotive (especially to those closer to the event) and it is often difficult to be objective as to inclusion in (Recent) Year articles. If it was possible to find agreement on what scale (in terms of deaths) could be considered notable (regardless of other international impact) much of the disagreement that arises here could be avoided. If the minimum number of deaths for a tornado or earthquake were set at 100 the present discussion would be over. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Is is establishing this qualification a matter for discussion? I agree, it is very difficult to sift through disasters, and choose which one meets the requirements. In terms of frequency, there have been 7 natural disasters that have caused 100 or more deaths year. These include: The catastrophic earthquake in Japan(15,000+), the flooding in Brazil(800+), the US April tornado outbreak (336), China Floods(239), The Christchurch earthquake(181), the May tornado outbreak(170) the Burma earthquake(150). Looking at other years, the average number of natural disaster that cause 100 or more deaths is around 9 or 10. They are not as frequent as one might assume. I am being summoned as I speak, and I will return with well formulated argument--Trilobite12 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)



(Before I begin, I would like to note again that very many of are mistaken, this was the largest outbreak ever. I do not desire to start another debate over this, but those of you say that this was not the largest and costliest, you are just simply wrong. I showed a close friend of mine this discussion, and he laughed and said "They have absolutely no idea what they are saying." I understand that tornadoes do not frequently happen outside the United States, and many well informed, smart people outside the meteorological community in the US may not understand, but please do not doubt that this was a record breaking event. I have spoken to many experts in this field who have agreed with everything I am saying. ) 100 plus deaths disasters are not terribly frequent, and they would not hog too much space in the article. However some disasters may have more or less of an economic impact on the country they affect. In descending order, the costliest disasters were:

  1. Japan Earthquake(300 billion USD)-300000 Homeless, and Costliest in recorded history
  2. Christchurch Earthquake(13 billion USD)-10000 Homeless Costliest in New Zealand's History, and second deadliest
  3. April US tornado outbreak(10 billion USD)-14000 Homeless Largest and costliest tornado ever outbreak recorded
  4. China Floods (5 billion USD)-500000 Evacuated, large numbers homeless
  5. Joplin MO Tornado (3 billion USD)-10000 Homeless? Costiest Single Tornado
  6. Rio de Janeiro flooding(1 Billion USD)-23000 HomelessPerhaps worst weather disaster in Brazil's History
  7. Burma earthquake(100 million USD- Several hundred homeless

It is pretty clear, that usually when death tolls exceed 100, there are major consequences to the areas affected. This has been a year for recorded breaking events, most of these events deserve some recognition in my opinion. Not to diminish its significance, but if any event is not to be included, the Burma earthquake would be it. The earthquake was not as massive as the rest of these disasters. I think for the 2011 page, disasters should be approached with a little more open mindedness. I

You or your friends are more than welcome to think we don't know what we are talking about, but, looking at the articles here, on Wikipedia, they do not agree with what you are saying. It was not the largest outbreak in the US and it was not the largest in the world, (also have a look at the Tornado records).
The number of death by tornadoes, (single or outbreak), as common enough to have its own article here.
You, (and your friend), are more than welcome to update those articles if you feel they are wrong, (been a common phenomenon around the world, there are many tornadoes/outbreak related articles).
I am aware that you feel that a tornado outbreak is not quite the same as a single tornado, (or something to that effect), but as it was not the deadliest I am not sure the small differences really matter here.
I will now leave this discussion as it is getting very repetitive. FFMG (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(You referring to "my friend" that many times seems to suggest an insincere tone, correct me if I am wrong) You keep referring to sequences, which are not the same as a single tornado outbreak. Soon I will visit those pages, and specify what it means for tornadoes to become outbreaks, and outbreaks to become sequences. If I were wrong, I would readily admit it, but thing is I know that I am right. Yeah, 43 tornadoes spanned over five centuries sure is frequent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobite12 (talk • contribs) 02:47,04 08 2011

(I know I wasn't going to reply any more ...), 43 tornadoes, clearly does not span over 5 centuries, there is one event in 1551, others are from ~1860 onward, not quite what you are trying to imply, (or are you suggesting that really _nothing_ happened for 400 years?
Of course it doesn't, it means that, as records are better kept, you notice that tornado related events are more frequently reported and monitored.
Looking at the records, I read that such an event is sadly all to frequent and happens every 3 years. or so FFMG (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will admit, only one event happened in 1551, I spoke(typed) without thinking. However, relative to other natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, cyclones), deaths in the hundreds are not frequent with tornadoes. In the grand scheme, 43 of these tornadoes is miniscule, and before the Joplin tornado, the last twister to claim over 100 lives was 14 years ago(in a country that is totally unprepared to handle them). I am positive one can count more than 43 floods or earthquakes that have caused more than 100 deaths in the past 14 years. Even if devastating tornadoes were closely monitored since the 1500's, they would be vastly outnumbered by other natural phenomena. Tornadoes are micro scale events, and when an outbreak of them wreak as much havoc is in this April, it is very noteworthy. And likewise, I'm sure what you are trying to imply.


You are leading me astray, I was attempting establish some parameters for inclusion of natural disasters, with 100 deaths being the qualifying amount. Thoughts?--Trilobite12 (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That discussion belongs at WP:RY, not here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Aha, I will do so--Trilobite12 (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ramadan Massacre

July 31 – Ramadan Massacre: At least 121 people are killed in a Syrian Army tank raid on the town of Hama and over 150 people are reportedly killed across the country. (Al Jazeera), (Al-Jazeera), (Al-Arabiya)--70.162.171.210 (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

mubarak trial

August 3 - The trial of the former president of Egypt Hosni Mubarak, who was ousted in the Egypt revolution, beggins. Mubarak is on a bed in a cage at court with other former goverment officials. Please write! — Preceding unsigned comment added by סער בריטניה (talk • contribs) 07:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


Added by me.

It is the first trial of a leader of a reformed country in the Arab World following the Arab Spring.

-- Plarem (talk | contribs | sandbox) 16:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed as it is a local event. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
How is it a local event? It is important in all the Arab World... – Plarem (talk | contribs | sandbox) 21:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
It's an Egyptian trial of an Egyptian in Egypt that relates specifically to Egypt. It is probably of more interest in the Arab world than to most other countries but the trial itself has no impact. The outcome might have international repercussions, but we will have to wait and see. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 Mumbai bombings

2011 Mumbai bombings, needs to be added. It was a major terrorist attack in Mumbai, India. 2011 Norway attacks can be there, then why can't 2011 Mumbai bombings. News was in fron page of bbc.co.uk on for atleast 2 days. Many International media was in Mumbai to cover the attacks. Karthik Nadar (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

how did it affect 3 continents?--70.162.171.210 (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It didn't have to affect 3 continent, but it would have to affect more than just India or be outstanding in some other way like the Norway attack was. — Yerpo Eh? 07:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
26 deaths is not particularly notable, there have been many such in Recent Years. There are no known international implications. There is therefore no justification for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree with you all... Thanks for clearing my doubt. Karthik Nadar (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 Christchurch earthquake

This needs to be added. It was a major even world wide. It effected the stock markets on the day that it happened and become one of the biggest insurance payouts in world history. To make it more worthy many countries sent aid workers, search and rescue workers, and there was a large amount of money from overseas received. And just for the Americans, Obama even mentioned it!!! A lot of other world leaders did too. 219.89.104.245 (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How this was a "major [event] world wide". Did it affected Slovenia? Swaziland? Argentina? or even Federated States of Micronesia? The wedding between Duke William and Duchess Catherine was even much more important than this, globally, and it is not listed here. Also, stop assuming that Wikipedia is an American POV pusher, it is not. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 07:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering there were about 1000-5000 aid workers from international countries it did effect them! Also I do not see how much of the stuff on the page effects the WHOLE world. How does the arrest of Laurent Gbagbo effect me in New Zealand, or my friend in Australia, or even my friend in the Federated States of Micronesia? And the killing of Osama bin Laden does not effect the whole world! And by the way it's actually William, Duke of Cambridge, not Duke William —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.104.245 (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, 219.89.104.245, don't argue along those lines. Instead, point out that 2010 features a landslide in Oaxaca that killed 7, and the October 2010 Sumatra earthquake and tsunami that killed 435. And point out that the "consensus" cited by User:Tbhotch is now invalid, as two more users (you and I) think this info should be included. Abductive (reasoning) 08:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Otherstuff is not a valid argument for inclusion. The previous discussion was quite clear. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Really? Very few editors commented there, and they were split on the issue. Taking the side of inclusion was the very respected User:Fences and windows. So perhaps you are wrong. Abductive (reasoning) 10:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
"The very respected user"? What's that got to do with anything? I happen to think that anonymous IPs deserve very little respect. Do we need to start rating users before establishing consensus? Ridiculous! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This is an event that does not belong in 2011, perhaps 2011 in New Zealand. BTW - I am very happy that User:Fences and windows is a highly respected user, but to mirror DerbyCountyinNZ, "What's that got to do with anything?". ttonyb (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It didn't until somebody disparaged IP users, which was the attitude my comment was meant to draw out. Users who disrespect IP users should feel great shame. Abductive (reasoning) 20:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

often a person will become known in the news to the general populace as a predictor of the future ... he will say i know that in the future the world will come to an end in 16 years from now ... god have there been a lot of these guys ... the more interesting item with this is that if you ask a psychologist what they think he will tell you that the fortune teller is using their own life as a measure of reality and thus this is why they have chosen a time frame so close in the future (somewhere ahead within their lifetime) ... the fact that this event occured to you is irrelevant ... we here at wiki are all sorry it occured to you ... we understand it was a major trauma to you and your country ... please though understand that this article only recorded notable world events ... and that it requires other countries to be effected by it ... here is a better example of how maybe in the future you could make your case for inclusion (though i deem it very unlikely to occur) ... the hobbit is being filmed there ... we are now in the future and the hobbit is being shown in theaters ... it ends up becoming the largest gross in human history of 12 billion US ... 816 million people worldwide see it ... lots of those people notice that wiki does not include a notation of this event which the director says influenced the filming timeline of his film ... these people come on here in a flood and want to add the event ... you would then get consensus ... but you do not have it today --70.162.171.210 (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) How dare you say(and I quote) "this article only recorded notable world events ". It effected much of the world. The Peak Ground Acceleration (which was one of the highest ever recorded) moved the earth's crust over a bit, which in turn pushed all the other tectonic plates around, thus effecting the whole world! You need to stop being to closed minded AND HAVE A BIT OF COMPASSION!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.104.245 (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Every earthquake is a consequence of movement of tectonic plates relative to one another (you might want to educate yourself a bit about it - there's a whole article about earthquakes with ample links to other articles on this topic), so that's nothing special, really. Getting emotional over the issue won't help your argument either... I honestly can't figure what does compassion have to do with this. Finally, labeling people as close-minded for no reason except not agreeing with you is considered somewhat immature around here. Do you really wish to be perceived like that? — Yerpo Eh? 08:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am actually educated about earthquakes- considering I study them and I am living through all the Christchurch ones. The point I was trying to make was that the Christchurch Earthquake did indeed have a effect on the whole world, through the tectonic plates. It also effected most of the world as many sovereign states issued travel warnings for Christchurch, immediately following the earthquake, thus effecting the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.94.17 (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Another reason it needs to be added is using the 'Three Continent' rule. Here are links to 3 news sites that have reported on it; Asia: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/22_48.html ; Europe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12533291 ; Northern America: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-22/world/us.obama.new.zealand_1_disaster-response-team-recovery-efforts-new-zealand?_s=PM:WORLD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.94.17 (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you really studied earthquakes as you say, you should know that you got the cause and effect wrong - by moving, tectonic plates influenced the Christchurch area to produce this event, not vice-versa. Even ignoring that, which earthquake does by your definition not effect the whole world? Should we start adding every minor earthquake because of that? The 3 continent rule is the bare minimum criterion, not a "reason" for inclusion (especially not in the age of mass media where everything even remotely interesting gets reported to death). The rest you mention (warnings) is merely a routine that didn't have any detectable impact. It is clearly an almost-event for everybody except NZ. — Yerpo Eh? 07:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

2011_Christchurch_earthquake#International　According to this page in Wikipedia, the earthquake in Christchurch sparked responses in many countries, particularly across Oceania, Asia, Europe and North America. If you want, here's a selection of news reports from Japan, where it sparked a debate into reviewing the suitability of Japanese buildings under earthquakes. The casualties come from 15 different countries and the missing persons from 20. I think it was a notable worldwide event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotto (talk • contribs) 10:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No-one is disputing the fact that it was a major event in New Zealand, and that it is very notable in that country. It is on 2011 in New Zealand. However, it is not internationally notable. It did not affect any other countries. Aid workers from other countries went to Christchurch to help with the rescue and recovery effort, but that very often happens when there is a major disaster. The 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami caused stock markets all over the world to crash. Only the New Zealand stock exchange fell significantly in response to the Christchurch quake. That is because (without wishing to cause offence) NZ is not one of the more powerful, important countries in the world in terms of economic power and volume of trade; Japan is the third-largest economy in the world. 188.29.29.76 (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because you say "(without wishing to cause offence)" doesn't mean you can say anything you want. That comment is offensive! New Zealand is an important and powerful country!! I ask that you remove that comment. Inclusion is also necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.10.99 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This earthquake is a tragedy for New Zealand, and a major event for that country. However, it has had little effect on the rest of the world. The list of countries by GDP (nominal) shows that there are about fifty countries that are more powerful than NZ. That's fact, not a judgement, insult or comment on its people. The main reason that NZ is not powerful is that it is sparsely populated. The vast majority of earthquakes are not mentioned on recent year articles because they rarely have a major effect outside the country in which they occur. I am merely explaining why the Japanese earthquake is included, but the Christchurch one is not; I don't have anything against NZ. I've improved the wording of my previous comment. 188.28.198.131 (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It is still extremely offensive. Anyway this earthquake needs to be added. Many of the people that died were from overseas countries. It also provoked many other countries to check their building codes (i.e. Japan) because our building codes have the greatest strictness in the world yet many people died and many buildings collapsed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.159.23 (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is you alone that is apparently "extremely offended" here and perhaps you should stop being so emotional about this. We're trying to lead a constructive debate. Just to show that emotions can be bad for evaluating facts: I find the claim about "many other countries checking their building code" highly dubious. Debate about building code review does not equal actual building code review (which can take months to even begin) and there's no mention in English-language sources that any country except NZ did this at all. It's true that some people from other countries died (however tragic), but the death toll is relatively minor overall. Natural disasters get added here if they have 1000+ casualties or some major international impact (compare to the Tohoku earthquake). I would dare to say that in every earthquake with the number of casualties similar to the Cristchurch earthquake, a number of foreigners die. They still don't get added to year articles. To be honest, the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake is included in the 2009 article, but in my opinion, this is a clear case of western bias (check the list of deadly earthquakes since 1900) and we should discuss removing it or lowering the bar completely. However, the offendedness of a couple of "kiwis" (as an anonymous New-Zealander phrased it before) because their national disaster is not considered important enough is not an argument in this discussion. — Yerpo Eh? 08:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The inconsistencies for inclusion are often brought up. The problem is that it isn't stated how far back the recent year guidelines extend to. Those criteria are applied strictly to the last two years or so, but have not been retrospectively applied to the previous few years, even though they should be. If a disaster shouldn't be included due to being considered to be internationally notable because foreigners died, then the L'Aquila earthquake should be removed, as it didn't damage any country other than Italy. We don't want to appear to be biased against / in favour of any part of the world. 109.249.202.67 (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The international effect that it has had on the world is regarding the Rugby World Cup. Many of the games were scheduled to take place in CHCH but because of the earthquake the International Rugby Board decided that the games were no longer to take place there. This effected many people that were coming to CHCH for the games as they needed to book flights, hotels etc in different parts of New Zealand. I am for inclusion.

Needs to be added. Consensus Reached! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.10.99 (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Your argument and especially the conclusion are extremely far-fetched, in my opinion. Rugby is a minor sport, and rugby events aren't important enough for mentioning here. Furthermore, the decision to change venues was made 6 months before the tournament, which probably makes the actual disturbance negligible. The "effected many people that were coming" is therefore pure guessing. — Yerpo Eh? 12:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry do you live in New Zealand? Are you being told all the information the we receive about the RWC. And rugby is not a minor sport! It is one of the most played sports in the world. Just add the earthquake even if you do not think it is worthy. I do not think that half the stuff on here is worthy, so technically that does not have consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.10.99 (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, rugby union is a relatively minor sport, far less popular than football or basketball, for example, only having a significant fan base in about 20 countries (a lot of which are tiny island nations - see Rugby_union#Global_reach). Yes, the decision was known shortly after the earthquake ([1]) and most of the visitors (except New Zealanders) probably won't even notice the change. You may think what you wish about other "stuff" here, but unless you produce arguments, your thoughts are completely irrelevant. So please start producing relevant arguments, if you have them, or stop dragging this meaningless debate. Thank you. — Yerpo Eh? 11:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Rugby World Cup is actually the 3rd biggest international sports event![citation needed] Even though it was known a few months in advanced, but that did not stop the fact that most accommodation/ flights etc. were already fixed.[citation needed] There is only two events in February, and I have a feeling nothing else is going to be happening in February (as it is JUNE!!). There is no harm adding it, but I have a feeling that you are going to say that there is, so what is it? Add the Earthquake! If you are wanting Wikipedia to be a international encyclopaedia then you need the input of countries from all over the globe- not just the ones that think they are better than others and are to arrogant to see that the world does not revolve around them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.156.177 (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious... what country do I come from that "thinks they are better than others and are to arrogant to see that the world does not revolve around them"? As to the downside to "harmless" adding of your favourite earthquake, it has already been explained, so I won't repeat. Read the discussion. The games are quite large, but the 'quake still had no serious impact on them. It's not like anything was cancelled because of it. — Yerpo Eh? 09:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yerpo, you are the rudest person I have ever crossed paths with. You put 'lol' after changing something about the earthquake! How about you stop being a immature little person and grow up. EARTHQUAKES ARE NOT FUNNY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.141.56 (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That referred to the comment I was answering to, not the earthquake. It should be obvious to anyone not excessively emotionally involved with the subject. I apologize anyway if I offended you. — Yerpo Eh? 07:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This Event *does* need to be added to the 2011 Article. Much of the Damage was covered by Insurance, and this, together with the Japaneese Earthquake and Tsunami, which is included in this article, it will have a gobal impact on the Insurance Industry. Let us add it please Wikipedia Kiwibeca (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless/until there is consensus that there be a minimum number of deaths for earthquakes, as well as for other disasters (something I have tried in vain to get established), the criteria for inclusion is international impact. The consensus is that this does not meet that criteria. Comparing it to the Japanese earthquake does not help the argument as that was greater by orders of magnitude in numbers of deaths, and also was far more significant in international impact. The simple solution to this argument would be to include any earthquake with more than 100 deaths, but that would need consensus at WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:RY is clearly a bit of a farce. I think we'll need a wider RfC so that events like this don't keep getting excluded (also see removal of Obama's election from 2008). This obsession with "international impact" is a strange Wikipedia invention - isn't a city being essentially flattened enough? - and even when international impact is shown for this event that's still not enough... Fences&Windows 17:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As a Christchurch earthquake survivor being told that the earthquake cannot be added is just offensive. I do know that many foreign exchange students have died and that it affected many countries around the world as different groups of soldiers including england australia and america entered New Zealand to help the trapped people of christchurch. As for the rugby world I believe that that does not matter just as long as all information including many us and uk celebrities who have donated money to the christchurch earthquake appeal including Allan rickman and many others. Please think about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woolybearbug (talk • contribs) 05:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with the above- let's add it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.10.92 (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Arguing this on the basis of feelings of those who experienced it won't help the discussion one bit, so please stop. — Yerpo Eh? 06:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

REALLY needs to be added. It was reported in 3 continents. It affected 3 continents (international people died). I do not see how you can add something about the Space Shuttle program ending (how does this affect 3 continents?!), and not add the Christchurch Earthquake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.150.84 (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that editors join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Recent years#Natural disasters. It's addressing the broader issue of how to manage this for any event. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

English riots

This keeps getting added back in, so I suppose a discussion is in order. While reported around the world, these riots have basically no impact on anyone outside of England. Template:Riots in England gives some perspective on how often there are riots in England. It's like shooting-spree killers in the US- shocking, frightening, but ultimately not internationally relevant. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
relevant if and only if becomes a fad in numerous countries for the same reason - which you must admit could be true but at this stage is just "crystal ball"--70.162.171.210 (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Debt ceiling crisis resolution and credit rating downgrade

Should the United States debt ceiling deal be accepted to the list of events? It is not local politics, as some indexes fell in the fear of U.S. default AND if the U.S. defaulted, all the world would plunge into a deeper crisis and more debt.

IF it was local politics, then Japan and China wouldn't have welcomed it, the EU and other unions wouldn't care as much of it, the world would go into a deeper crisis if this didn't happen

The Tucson shootings are local politics as I haven't heard of it here in Europe if it wasn't discussed here.

I believe this should be added, as this is a debt ceiling deal of the world's biggest economy...

-- Plarem (talk | contribs | sandbox) 15:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Most of the commentators I heard believe that they did nothing but postpone the problem for 6 months. So, essentially, nothing with any real long-term importance. — Yerpo Eh? 06:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The US losing its AAA rating is the biggest financial news in decades. Of course it should be included. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is for the US. No evidence, yet, that it has any notable international repercussions. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I think there are 2 issues here, the debt resolution and the AAA rating.
The debt resolution is a domestic matter and it is not really a first, the impact on other country is not really that big. The current European financial crisis probably has a a bigger international impact, (but even that is debatable).
As for the AAA rating it might have an international impact, but it is too soon to tell.
My guess it to wait a bit and see how this unfolds. FFMG (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
i am almost certain that the aaa loss is going to cause endless world financial chaos (i vote to include) ... but, as FFMG just said it is too early to say and at this point is still just "Crystal ball" and "news" but not notable--70.162.171.210 (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
on May 2, 2011 the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at a high of 12807 points - a 20 percent correction would require the Dow to fall to 10246 (20% corrections in business are usuallly the minimum change to be considered a significant market move) - as of today Monday August 8, 2011 the Dow JIA closed at 10810 - thus as of today the market, though down, has not meet a threshold for inclusion.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Has around 5 days of markets going down in fear of the U.S. default and after S&P downgraded the U.S. credit rating to AA+ too little to include?
Asian markets went down around 4-7% for a few days and European markets by around 3-5% And only started to rise by minimal percentage when the U.S. Treasury kept percentage rates for mortgages super low....
I think it should be added as this is a major event in business around the world... -- Plarem (talk | contribs | sandbox) 08:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I still think we need to wait, the Dow is back to +11,228.04, (~+4.4%), (looking at it as I type this), and this is exactly why we need to wait. A fluctuation like that, over 5 days is unusual, but I don't know if it is important enough to be included here.
France now seem to be having a bit of a wobble as well and that might have an impact on the markets, but I don't think it has anything to do with the US downgrade/pharaonic debt. FFMG (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It didn't go that far up... DJI: 11143.31 +423.37‎ (3.95%‎) 11 August 14:09 ET
And the major credit rating companies are reassurring France of its AAA rating
-- Plarem (talk | contribs | sandbox) 20:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it did go that far up, http://money.cnn.com/data/markets/, (amongst others). As for France, I never said anything about their rating, they are a long way away from loosing AAA. FFMG (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It is still going up today, except not as high...
Dow Jones: 11,269.02 +125.71 (+1.13%‎) 12 August 16:53 ET
NASDAQ: 2,507.98 +15.30 (+0.61%‎) 12 August 16:53 ET
Standard & Poor's: 1,178.81 +6.17 (+0.53%‎) 12 August 16:53 ET
European markets are similar:
ENGLAND FTSE 100: 5,320.03 +157.20 (+03.04%‎) 12 August 11:35 ET
EU Euronext 100: 594.05 +23.06 (+4.04%‎) 12 August 12:08 ET
FRANCE CAC 40: 3,213.88 +124.22 (+4.02%‎) 12 August 12:12 ET
Germany Frankfurt DAX 5,997.74 +200.08 (+3.45%‎) 12 August 12:30 ET
Swiss Market Index 5,252.81 +200.06 (+4.37%‎) 12 August 11:30 ET
The Asian markets that lost over 7% after the downgrade are still in the red.
Japan Nikkei 225 8,963.72 -18.22 (-0.20%‎) 12 August 02:28 ET
Taiwan TSEC 50 Index 7,637.02 -82.07 (-1.06%‎) 12 August 01:31 ET
Mumbai Sensex 16,839.63 -219.77 (-1.29%‎) 12 August 06:30 ET
Hong Kong Hang Seng 19,620.01 +24.87 (+0.13%‎) 12 August 04:01 ET
Shanghai SE Composite Index 2,593.17 +11.66 (+0.45%‎) 12 August 03:15 ET
Australia ASX All Ordinaries 4,237.90m+34.39 (+0.82%‎) 12 August 04:55 ET
"After a wild week, stocks rise modestly" (CNN Markets)
The 'wild week' part was a week of significant reds on the markets and that is why it should be added to the list of events, according to me of course. Now most markets are going up, but why can't it be added? It had a lasting effect of over a week and was a problem all around the world. It has every continent on Earth reporting on this business problem, so why can't it be added?
– Plarem (talk | contribs | sandbox) 21:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Should the United States debt ceiling deal be accepted to the list of events?
It is not local politics, as some indexes fell in the fear of U.S. default AND if the U.S. defaulted, all the world would plunge into a deeper crisis and more debt.
IF it was local politics, then Japan and China wouldn't have welcomed it, the EU and other unions wouldn't care as much of it, the world would go into a deeper crisis if this didn't happen
The Tucson shootings are local politics as I haven't heard of it here in Europe if it wasn't discussed here.
I believe this should be added, as this is a debt ceiling deal of the world's biggest economy...
This and the debt ceiling downgrade caused over a week of reds on the markets and huge losses around the world.
I tried to add it again, but it was reverted...
I have given reasons, if somebody wants more I can give them the reasons.
– Plarem (User page | talk | contribs | sandbox) 19:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I still don't think it should be added, the overall impact is/was, (so far), minimal. The markets going in the red is a result of many factors, (ranging from the financial problems in the US and Europe, riots in the UK to gold miners striking in South Africa or maybe even China having a small dig at the US).
We cannot say for certain that the markets falling, (and then making a slow recovery), is solely based on the financial issues in the US.
I would be interested to hear what others think. FFMG (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Global financial ups and downs are a regular occurence. The impact so far of the US debt crisis is not yet apparent and is certainly difficult to assess in isolation. This is likely to take months before its importance can be assessed accurately. There is no justification for adding it to this article, yet. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I know that this isn't what we're talking about, but the markets could go downagain as the EU is having even more severe economic problems.... – Plarem (User page | talk | contribs | sandbox) 20:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia

got removed by Arthurubin with this comment "There have been any number of revolutionary therapies for cancer; most turn out not to work in general."

all i can say is you are FLAT OUT WRONG AND IT SHOWS YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT MEDICINE - the article is in the New England Journal of Medicine for a reason - have you heard of this journal before!?--70.162.171.210 (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

looking at the article 2011 i can see total bias against medicine - there have been 5 ground-breaking discoveries this year in medicine - NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM IS NOTED IN THE YEAR ARTICLE!--70.162.171.210 (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
did you even bother to read the citations listed with this - a death's door patient who literally had been tortured since 1996 by diagnostic testing and theraputic intervention had his tumors vanish - shame on you for downplaying the significance of this achievement--70.162.171.210 (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Scientific discoveries belong in 2011 in science. If they turn out to be historically significant (i.e. a cancer "cure" actually works, and not just once) then they could be included. And I see no reason why there can't be 2011 in medicine for including all the entries which are not notabl enough to be included in the main article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
there are about a hundred items to this date in 2011 in science - you will have to admit that of those hundred at least 5% must be important enough to make it into the big article?--70.162.171.210 (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
But some could be notable enough though... ---- Plarem (talk | contribs | sandbox) 08:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean "could be"? Either they are, or they aren't. Those that are, are included, and those that aren't, well, you get the picture. The cure for leukemia most certainly is not yet, the results are so preliminary that not even the authors dare say anything more than "these findings warrant continued study". Funny how quick the anonymous contributor was in accusing everybody of "not having a clue in medicine". Like he had any... — Yerpo Eh? 12:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
By 'could be' I mean that I didn't read the article! -- Plarem (talk | contribs | sandbox) 20:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
like i had any? ...you have that idea of "further study" completely wrong ... the further study concerns if it will be possible to use this phenomenial technique to extrapolate to other types of cancer ... now who does not have a clue?--70.162.171.210 (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Please don't drag this debate to even more silly extremes. Three people went into remission (for who knows how long) using this therapy, out of quarter of a million patients. It might as well be a fortune teller telling us this will revolutionize leukemia (or any other type of cancer) treatment. Sure, it sounds promising, but like Arthurubin said, there's been plenty "revolutionary" therapies developed for different types of cancer in recent decades, and as far as I know, no type has been eradicated yet. Many years will pass before we know whether this one will be any different. — Yerpo Eh? 15:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
actually you are the one digging themself deeper ... the sample space of just three is exactly why this medical finding is so significant ... you just dont understand ... The New England Journal of Medicine thought that the results were so phenomenial and possiblely promising to other fields of cancer that 3 was all they needed to publish the study ... now dont you look "silly"--70.162.171.210 (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

sometimes 3 is all the sample space you need to knock someone's socks off ... example - if the sun did not come for the next three days--70.162.171.210 (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not, you're the one uncapable of understanding. NEJM publishes all sorts of preliminary studies (besides, this one is just a brief report, not even a full research article). But regardless of the sample number, they are still all preliminary and predicting whether they will prove "revolutionary" or worthless is a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. Even if they are published in NEJM or any other high-quality journal. If you're so sure of their success, invest in their research, just spare us this nonsense. — Yerpo Eh? 15:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
PS: comparing these results to sun (not) rising only shows that you have a really poor understanding of statistics. — Yerpo Eh? 15:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I just this minute heard a discussion with a cancer researcher on this on Morning Edition. He characterized the research as very promising, but only a modest success that is not even close to being tested on a larger scale. [2] Beeblebrox (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It does occur to me that we don't have a guideline for inclusion of science material. Perhaps we should discuss. Wrad (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It does occur to you that we do not disuss guidelines here? We discuss them at WP:RY. Thanks. – Plarem (User page | talk | contribs | sandbox) 20:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
No need to be bitey. I'm very aware of where the guidelines are. I helped write the first draft of that page. I just think that if we had a science guideline then it would help us avoid similar arguments. Wrad (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
It is difficult to judge the merit of many scientific achievements, because in most cases, it only becomes apparent many years later, if and when the achievement comes to general use. I would argue for adding such events retroactively to older year articles, unless it is generally accepted to be an important breakthrough (such as the transplant mentioned for july). But that has to be considered on a case-to-case basis. — Yerpo Eh? 13:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

time to archive

this page is really long now - is it past time to archive some of it?--70.162.171.210 (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This page autoarchives after 30 days. If people would stop commenting on dead issues it would archive more quickly. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok

Before the following message is read, I have no intention on offending people of Haitian or American nationality. I'm just voicing my opinion on the shooting. Oh my GOD! If Haiti gets a spot even though I was not affected, then why does Haiti get unaffected even though I do? This arguing has gone on long enough! Haiti is just as important as the U.S.A, so is our spots. If you don't want a Wikipedia that is full of America, would you rather have a Wikipedia full of Haiti? Plus, I LIVE in Tucson! GOD! Solowing106 (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

So, basically, you're equating a failed assassination attempt on a local politician with an earthquake that killed nearly 100.000 people and destroyed a capital city? Interesting, but I fail to see how your opinion would improve the article. I'm also dying to find out how does one entry in several dozen amount to Wikipedia being "full of Haiti". — Yerpo Eh? 05:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm just saying, all articles--Nah, I'll get nowhere with that. You:"So, basically, you're equating a failed assassination attempt on a local politician with an earthquake that killed nearly 100.000 people and destroyed a capital city?" Me:"YES, I AM!" And I think I heard on CNN that this got international recognition. The "full of Haiti" thing, yes, I admit, could be wrong. But, I still think that even though I was not affected, Haiti got a spot. So if Haiti is unaffected, I think that the shooting should get a spot. So that everything is equaled out. Otherwise, that would just be messed.

--Solowing106 (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. Please read the discussion on the top of this page and add there if you have something useful to add. Just to clarify, whether you are personally affected or not is not a useful argument, neither is merely international "recognition", whatever that would be. We have already been through that. — Yerpo Eh? 11:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Dude, when I is used, I'm talking about Tucson in general. I mean really, the only Tucsonan unaffected could be Jared Loughner. All the rest of I had a chunk of our gut blown out. Of course, I was affected. I know everyone else was, too.

Oh, you got this wrong. It's not international "recognition", it's "international" recognition. And it's still not equalized....... --Solowing106 (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a waste of time, so I will stop debating this with you until you read the discussion on this topic and provide a relevant argument for inclusion. — Yerpo Eh? 19:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Solowing, Could you please stop adding so much unnecessary whitespace to your comments Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

To Yerpo: Ok, and while you do that, I'll continue posting here.

To Beeblebrox: I think the whitespace represents my presonality and my speech pattern, they are meant to indicate pauses.

Why, what's wrong with whitespace? --Solowing106 (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

All articles should be equally recognized and respected. Therefore, if Haiti was recognized in 2010, the shooting should be recognized just the same.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
All articles too.
--Solowing106 (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Yerpo, Do you believe that things should be equal? I can't believe that I'm gonna use physics for this one.

Even though a textbook is so much larger in weight than a roll of tape, when you release them from the same height, they hit the ground at the same time.

Even though more people died in Haiti than in Tucson, they still are bad things, and therefore they must be posted the same. I know other users will call that a stupid argument.

It's a stupid argument, but it's my argument.

Bye. Solowing106 (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

They will only hit the ground at the same time in a vacuum. So, to keep your analogy alive, (barely), this is article is not a vacuum. FFMG (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
That, I didn't kmow, but the shooting still needs to be here. Solowing106 (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Wake's Death

Thought i would ask rather than just add her. Should Nancy Wake who died on the 7 August be added to the deaths section. She was a British Agent and member of the French Resistance. She was at one point the Gestapo's most wanted person during WW2, they nicknamed her the 'White Mouse' . Honored officially in Australia, New Zealand, France, the UK and the US, as well as the Commonwealth of Nations. Also stood unsuccessfully in several Australian federal elections. Rump1234 (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the article doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RYB with respect to the number of foreign-language Wikipedia articles. Favonian (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, despite the fact that she is far more deserving of notability than many that are included, she does not meet the criteria. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
...though one of the criteria is that the criteria can be ignored... Wrad (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a shame that Bruce Beresford hasn't finished making his movie about her. (See here.) I suspect that the aditional fame it will bring will make her inclusion a certainty. HiLo48 (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Revisiting this again, I noticed that there were now 13 non-english Wikipedia articles on her, not counting Simple English. Of those some are stubs, but most are start or quite substantial. - Bilby (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe in a couple of years, but this looks like just a case of recentism - people writing articles about her just because the media announced her death, where noone bothered when she was still alive. It's a good sign that she wasn't considered so important internationally. — Yerpo Eh? 08:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I'd be inclined to argue that she is a significant international figure, and the the various language wikis are just catching up. Certainly she is important in Australia, France, the UK, New Zealand, the US and Germany, in various ways. I don't think we can see this as simply recentism. Whether it is enough to qualify here is a different thing, but she has both international significance and is covered in more than 10 different language wikis, which seems to meet the criteria. - Bilby (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not a case of WP:Recentism. This is someone whose notability was achieved over 60 years ago. That it has taken till her death for some wiki langauges to realise this is more like the opposite of recentism. Recentism is more appropriately attributed to minor sports and entertainment people who have "recently" been active in their field. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I still think that this is largely a case of recentism. Her notability 60 years ago apparently wasn't so prominent for people working in various Wikipedia editions to bother creating articles about her before she died. Only in four they did. The later articles were obviously spurned by various media publishing her obituary, which is often the case. There were several cases like that in which we decided against inclusion. I'm sorry if this comparison seems offensive, but Ryan Dunn also achieved his notability in the whole decade before his death, but most of the articles in other languages were written after that event and he was excluded from this year's list. That said, I agree that Nancy Wake would be far more deserving of a place and I won't hold any grudges if my opinion is ignored. It's just that we're again resorting to arbitrary judgement and it will be even more difficult to justify exclusion of someone "obviously" not deserving the place in the future (or even the existence of the interwiki criterion itself) if we include her. Additionally, only 5 of foreign-language articles are non-stubs, two or three even consisting of just a few sentences. — Yerpo Eh? 11:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I suspect you may be underestimating her importance - she's had biographies written about her life, with the first published in 1956, she been extensively covered in multiple sources for over 60 years, a TV series was based on her life in the 80's and one movie about her was made while another is in pre-production. Rather than seeing this as recentism, it is more a case of the tendency of WP to reply only on recent online sources. Certainly, I wouldn't say that her notability has only emerged in the last 10 years. - Bilby (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm completely in agreement with Bilby here. The acts she is famous for were performed nearly 70 years ago. One of Wikipedia's biases is that such people generally get less coverage than more recent "folk heroes", simply because they are of less significance to younger editors. We must look beyond Wikipedia for her importance. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is recentism from the perspective of, say, Polish, Finnish, Welsh and other-language Wikipedias where the articles were only created after she died. You're mistaking notability for importance - of course she is notable, that's why she can have a well-referenced article meeting all notability criteria (in all Wikis), but apparently only English-, French-, German- and Israeli-speaking editors considered her important enough to bother writing articles about her that weren't spurned by her widely reported death. See, I do not make any claims about her importance per se, but her worldwide importance (reflected in her wiki coverage), which counts here. And I'm merely saying that we're throwing away criteria for inclusion among the recent year deaths that work reasonably well. Now, the criteria may not be perfect, but if we choose to overrule them, we should create better ones instead of just ignoring the issue and making arbitrary judgements. Perspective is the key (which is perhaps difficult to understand for someone that doesn't really care for WP:RY as a whole, just wanting to promote "his" subject) - tomorrow, somebody else might come by, wanting to include a person slightly less "obviously deseriving" and a whole lot of talk-page bashing will erupt. The day after tomorrow, another one. Is it really worth it? — Yerpo Eh? 08:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Consensus can always overrule guidelines. This has happened quite a few times in othe Recent Years and people not only less notable but far less important have been (block-)voted in. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
So, because of that, we're downplaying guidelines even further... I mean, if that's ok with others, I have nothing else to say, but I'm still wondering if it's worth it (i.e. will make Wikipedia better). It's also curious that all three editors speaking in favour of her inclusion come from "down under" (AUS or NZ). You don't have to be psychic to predict POV accusations flying around these pages in the future. — Yerpo Eh? 13:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the significance of where editors come from if the arguments are sound. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 Hurricane Irene

Why can't Hurricane Irene be added to the list of events?

From WP:RY

Three-continent rule

New events added must receive independent news reporting from three different continents1 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 event2, may be removed.

1 =

(Europe): http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0826/irene.html - "Evacuation order for parts of NYC" - RTE News.
(N. America): http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/27/nyregion/new-york-city-begins-evacuations-before-hurricane.html?_r=1&hp - "City Orders Evacuation of Coastal Areas" - N.Y. Times.
(Asia): http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2011-08/26/content_13198402.htm - "Hurricane Irene tightens aim on East Coast" - China Daily (China).
(Australasia): http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/america-evacuates-as-huge-storm-heads-to-new-york-20110826-1jeb7.html - "America evacuates as huge storm heads to New York" - Sydney Morning Herald.
I gave 4 continents reporting on this event. And they're all independent from each other.

2 =

Hurricane Irene (2011)

WP:RY intro:

The event must have a demonstrated, international significance.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/new-york-hurricane-could-be-multibillion-dollar-catastrophe/?ref=nyregion - A New York Hurricane Could Be a Multibillion-Dollar Catastrophe - NY Times

And a Plan B:

Any of the standards set below can be overruled by a consensus to ignore those standards in a given case.

IT IS NOT A U.S. CENTRIC EVENT OR AGAINST THE AMERICANISATION OF WIKIPEDIA As Hurricane Irene has hit some Carribean Islands, starting at Puerto Rico.

– Plarem (User | talk | contribs) 21:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Exclude Yes, Hurricane Irene has effected many islands in the Caribbean and will be effecting the United States of America. 1 fatality has occurred in direct relation to this storm. No damage whatsoever. Please consider the fact that not even Hurricane Katrina made it into the 2005 page, Katrina caused billions in damage - it happened to be the costliest hurricane ever - and caused thousands of deaths, it entered news all of over the world, controversies were pilled over it (Hurricane Katrina (2005)#Criticism of government response) and economical and environmental problems resulted. Irene is a mere nothing compared to Katrina. I am suggesting, but not certain, that you may have included this because Irene effected you or the news has been overdramatizing this hurricane. But, certainly this is not worthy. Whenaxis (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely it would be rational to at least wait until it's over to assess the true impact of a storm. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose. However, if User:Plarem still wants this event to be placed in 2011, further discussion shall continue. Whenaxis (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Exclude. Not an internationally/historically notable hurricane, just one of many that happen EVERY year. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Evacuation of 300,000 people in New York City doesn't rate international news? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
We need to look at it just as "Evacuation of 300,000 people". It doesn't matter where from. New York is no more important for that fact than the flood plain of the Yangtze, where such events seem fairly common. But I'm open to other opinions on how significant evacuating that many people is on a global scale. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Exclude - unless something more happens, it doesn't seem to meet the current standards for inclusion. Large scale evacuations are certainly an impact for everyone involved, but they're not necessarily of sufficient global impact to meet the current consensus. - Bilby (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 Virginia Earthquake

I knew as soon as I heard about this earthquake I would find it on the 2011 page. However, it is fairly minor, though it was felt throughout the East Coast of the United States and Canada. The continuing American bias is not reasonable, especially, when other events that are very similiar do not make it into an International page. This page is about INTERNATIONAL NEWS that effects the whole world.

Some other events like the 2010 Central Canada earthquake had a 5.0 magnitude and effected Canada and the northeastern United States, but never made it into the international news section in 2010. So, why does this news story make it in, it was only a little bit stronger at 5.9 magnitude and did similiar damage (minor or none). Whenaxis (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

EXCLUDE ... it is written up where it belongs in 2011 in the United States--70.162.171.210 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Exclude as above. More evidence that some people really struggle to understand what should be included in a Year article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, this isn't even a major event in the US, no real harm was done. On the West coast we know a 5.9 is not that big of a deal. You know you've been in a quake for sure, some stuff might fall off the shelves, but that's usually about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Exclude, as per other comments. I am not even sure why we are having a vote at all.
On a side note, this is Wikipedia, you cannot blame some editors for the editing errors of others. All we can do is correct the mistakes as soon as we spot them. FFMG (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
EXCLUDE Even in the areas where it was felt, the impact of this earthquake after today will be zero. The fact that anybody even thought it was a reasonable addition shows the problems we have with the lack of objectivity of some editors here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll be sure to check here when major monuments in other countries are damaged and closed until further notice, to make sure that those events don't go into the year articles. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem with that post is that it seems we're all expected to know what you're talking about. What major monument? What damage? I seriously can't imagine one damaged building in my country going into a Year article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
If the Sydney Opera House were shut down indefinitely, it wouldn't be significant? I'm talking about the Washington Monument. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it would be significant enough for the global Year article. But that's just my opinion. I'd be interested in others. Maybe your mention of a monument is important, along with Washington's name. From afar, both seem to be far more important to Americans than any politician or building is to Australians. HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
A temporary closure of the Washington Monument is not important. Maybe, the complete closure would be important such as: the closure of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. But that didn't happen. Whenaxis (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Jack Layton

Although very notable in Canada and therefore rightly on 2011 in Canada, he doesn't appear to have any international notability. He was never head of government, only of his party and the opposition. Therefore, I don't believe that he should be included in the Deaths section, even though he has enough articles. 31.64.40.33 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

His article reads more like a biography than an encyclopedic entry, it certainly seems overlarge for the subject matter. And while he easily exceeded the 9 non-English article minimum at his death the vast majority of those articles are stubs or little more. I agree that he appears to have no international notability (being a member of the opposition doesn't really count). I'd lean toward "Exclude". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
EXCLUDE - 2011 in Canada, highest level of note he deserves to be recognized--70.162.171.210 (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
EXCLUDE as per above. I live in Canada and I don't believe that Jack Layton is even important. This is the first time ever that a member of the Opposition had a state funeral and/or a memorial this big and I don't know why. But to more important matters, Jack Layton was mentioned in Canadian media only for a short time. Whenaxis (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

September 9, 2011, trim

I will remove some less notable or unsourced events from the list and put them here. Feelfree to discuss. I have rough criteria in mind, but typing them would be too long. The years are missing from the copied elements.

Once again, we have another plea to put in a natural disaster, like a hurricane (typhoon), tornado, a minor earthquake. All these things happen on a daily basis. To me, an event that is majorly catastrophic with over 2000 people dead, or an airplane crash that is notable for safety or newsworthy in same way. But something that happens every single year, every single day, perhaps, is not worthy. Moreover, it's a surprise when some people come up with Tornado Outbreak, what's next Thunderstorm scared me!. Some really frivilous things and really miniscule events come onto Wikipedia and it's an annoyance for adminstrators or trustworthy Wikipedia users because we have to read in between the lines and make sure it's something noteworthy, or even real. Whenaxis (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

September 11th – 10 years on. Anniversary of 9/11 terrorist attacks.

I and a few other editors have added the September 11th, 2011 onto the article multiple times. Ye, bureaucrats, have NO COMMON SENSE!

Please see WP:BURO and WP:Ignore all rules. AND in the old 'Predicted and scheduled events' it said: No anniversaries, except if special commemmorations are planned.

If I was a bureaucrat, then 2011 would look like this:

Events
January


February


March


April


May


June


July


August


September
  • Please note:
  1. We are too much of a bureaucracy to include anything, because everything is against WP:RY and we can't reach a consensus here.
  2. DO NOT TRY TO ADD ANYTHING OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED FOREVER.

– Plarem (User talk contribs) 20:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Here in Australia we have huge ceremonies every year on Anzac Day. I don't believe they should be in recent years articles. Do you? HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Here in South Africa we celebrate the end of Apartheid every year, there are celebrations in many countries, (I can find references if need be). Maybe we should add that anniversary as well. FFMG (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
But are they of a terrorist attack? Are they a 10th anniversary? – Plarem (User talk contribs) 14:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
the only argument for inclusion in the big article is that people from multiple nations died in the world trade center and thus people around the world would commemorate the 10th anniversory - but, fact of the matter is this is an anniversory - not the original event - EXCLUDE--70.162.171.210 (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
the only reason i included it into 2011 in the United States was the openning of the memorial and museum. had those sites been completed at 13 years 223 days after the original event i would have noted them - the "10th anniversory" = has no relevance to notability --70.162.171.210 (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I vote exclude also - my understanding is the criteria for inclusion is international notability. a ceremony held in one country as a memorial for anything is not notable around the globe. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

When people request for events, you cannot just merely decide: "Hmm...I've never heard of an inclusion for this before so, therefore it's not worthy." Wikipedia cannot set out rules for every possible inclusion request. Sure, there are the normal things such as, natural disasters, economy related requests, etc. However, there are requests that don't necessarily fit any of the existing topics or foregoing topics. So, I would suggest to examine reasons to include and reasons to exclude.
Include
It effected many people from many nations.
It changed safety measures across the world.
Continuing effects of 9/11 on families, the government and health.

Please note: This memorial brings closure to many families that did not have a body recovered from the death of their loved one. The above mentioned and herein are some reasons for inclusion of the anniversial memorial.

I agree with you that the actual 911 event had all those impacts that you mention. but the event that we're debating here is the annaversary memorial celebrations held in New York, not the actual event itself. place the words "the memorial event" in place of your "it" in the three points that you mention and it's not worth a mention. e.g. "The memorial event affected many people from many nations" - No. "The memorial event changed safety measures accross the world" - No. "Continuing effects of the memorial event on families, the government and health" - No. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you trying to suggest. However, the notability of the actual event effects the importance or notability or inclusion of the memorial for the aforementioned event. Because the 9/11 attacks and the memorial are so closely correlated I would think that using the outcomes of 9/11 to better emphasize my point for inclusion is what I was getting at. Whenaxis (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Exclude
There were a lot of other memorials of this event
Some other non-American events did not receive recognition on memorials such as: Air India Flight 182

Whenaxis (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Exclude. Not notable outside the US. Making the news does not make an event notable. Certainly less significant than other anniversaries which are celebrated worldwide (e.g. WWI and WWII) which are also are not included. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

George Cadle Price

Only seven foreign entries but was a Prime Minister of such a small nation, should his death be included? Ifore2010 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

According to his article he was a leading figure in the movement for the independence of Belize, was its first Prime Minister and held office for 3 years. That would seem sufficient for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
INCLUDE: i think it is clear from most of my discussion that i tend to hold on the side of inclusion in the case of most on the edge obits--70.162.171.210 (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Consensus was reached that we include all national leaders (except for interim leaders), even if they do not have a sufficient number of articles. 188.29.120.198 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

INCLUDE-sometimes someone dies that is that important, as with bin Laden--70.162.171.210 (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

have you looked at how massively long that guy's article is?--70.162.171.210 (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree, Jobs' changed the world through the creation of the iMac, iPod, iPhone and iPad, etc. His departure and now death leave many wondering what will become of Apple, which he brought back from the brink of ruin when he left Pixar, which he also founded, to return and save Apple from going bankrupt. He is one of, possibly the most, influential CEO of the last few decades. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Wait, are we discussing whether to include him in the "deaths" section (no brainer) or whether to include his death in the "events" section? His death is certainly not the source of his relevance, and he had been sick for some time so it is not exactly unexpected or shocking, sad though it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
He is included in the Deaths section. There is no reason to include his death in the Events section, that only happens in exceptional circumstances such as the death of Michael Jackson. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "exceptional circumstances"? That there were mysteries and suspicions surrounding the death? Steve Jobs was the Michael Jackson of the IT world. Your approach means that a pop star gets more attention here than a genius of a very important industry. HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't argue that Jobs was not a genius, as you can see from my remarks above, but his death was more or less expected and is not, as in the case of bin Laden or Michael Jackson, a shocking event. He will certainly be remembered for a long time, but for what he did while he was alive not for dying of cancer. Note that we have articles at Death of Osama bin Laden and Death of Michael Jackson. Jobs died of a disease that he knew about for years. He was not capped by a team of Navy Seals or given an overdose by an unscrupulous doctor, he just died from being very sick. That's the difference, it has nothing to do with who was more important or intelligent and everything to do with the death itself being an important facet of the life story, which it is not in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the comments above, while is death is sad, it was not as unexpected as M Jackson or bin Laden. His death noted in the death section is enough. Adding something in the 'events' section would seem out of place. FFMG (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Paulette Dubost

I've removed her from the Deaths section as she does not appear to be notable enough. While she meets the minimum requirement at WP:RY her English article is only a stub plus a list of films and almost all the other language articles are the same. She may be more deserving of notability than many more recent actors and actresses that does not seem to have been demonstrated in her articles. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

INCLUDE-although i have to agree will all your points, the fact of the matter is that imdb lists 198 acting items, a number that most actors wont even get 10% of--70.162.171.210 (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Al Davis

INCLUDE-the deaths section should have this notable person added in under exception--70.162.171.210 (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? According to his article, he has no international significance whatsoever. — Yerpo Eh? 08:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
i dont know how you see it as so cut and dry?, unlike most American football league associated persons he has 4 international references and thus is just short of inclusion

"de:Al Davis es:Al Davis it:Al Davis fi:Al Davis"--70.162.171.210 (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

He has 4 non-English wiki articles (not the same as nternational references). The minimum is 9. He is not "just short", he is not even close. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Clearly fails WP:RY and obviously not internationally notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Floods

Through previous discussion, others have made it quite clear that only disasters with international effects belong in this article. If this article operates under that premise, then neither the floods in Thailand or Rio de Janeiro belong in here. I do not doubt the devastation that these events may have caused, but previous discussions denote the exclusion of events such as these. --Trilobite12 (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to go solely by international effects then you are right. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering so many different proposals have been shot down because "world relevance" card, I would like to hear the reason as to why these particular events are still here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobite12 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please elaborate, because you seem to be contradicting yourself.--Trilobite12 (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Jagjit Singh

Although he has enough languages the vast majority of them are Indian which suggests he had little notability outside his home country, still worthy? Ifore2010 (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, his articles do not seem to indicate sufficient international notability for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Note, however, that we are talking about a country with over a billion inhabitants. It all depends on how you define a nation, and this doesn't necessarily include country borders. I'd wager that more people know of him than of many that are included, and it is western-centric to ignore that. So it would be more useful to judge by the state of those articles, IMO, which is where it gets a little clearer. Two of them don't even exist, one or two consist only of a sentence, and only two non-English ones are appreciably long. Which is why I lean toward exclusion, too. — Yerpo Eh? 07:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sportsperson picture needed for deaths section

I agree, some balance would be good. Bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki represent the same theme, so one of them is redundant (al-Awlaki would be the obvious choice for removal since Bin Laden was so much more notorious). — Yerpo Eh? 16:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. In the "Deaths" section of these articles we normally tend to put pictures of the most prominent figures whom died in specific given months. As far as I know, we normally do not tend to choose the pictures of personalities in such a way that there would be an equal division between the selected people according to their field of work. What is the current policy regarding this matter? In any case, in my opinion, in this case the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki was a much more significant event and had much more international significance than the death of Sweden's hockey player Stefan Liv. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Stevan Liv may not be a particularly notable individual, but then Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't particularly well-known either until his death. There is a tendency for the pictures of relatively minor entertainers to be included over people who are actually more historically important. We have one terrorist (the biggest), we don't really need another. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Another option would be Wangari Maathai, who was arguably more important than both Liv and al-Awlaki. — Yerpo Eh? 11:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed! Given the number of non-English articles she would certainly seem a better choice. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I made the change. — Yerpo Eh? 07:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 ICC Cricket World Cup

The 2011 ICC Cricket World Cup was one of the biggest sporting events of the world held in 2011, just as the 2010 FIFA World Cup which was held in 2010 and is included in it. This Should be included in the Article. According to the said Policy it qualifies in every aspect and is thus eligible. TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:RY the only sporting events considered to be of sufficient international importance to be included are the Olympic Games and FIFA World Cup. There are many sports world championships which are more notable than cricket and others which could be considered just as important. It is not feasible to include all of them and deciding which to include would lead to endless arguments. They are more appropriately included in 2011 in sports. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Elisabeth Sladen

Why not add Elisabeth Sladen's (tragic) death? --Rhain1999 (talk) 08:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As discussed previously, she is not sufficently notable internationally (as required for inclusion in this article). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
She was notable in the UK, and hence is on 2011 in the United Kingdom and 2011 in British television. She was not notable outside the UK, and hence is not included in this international article. 188.29.120.198 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
How is she not notable outside the UK? She was on a two programs that were broadcast internationally -one of them being one of the most well known programs in history! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.2.191 (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Although I agree she's notable, she doesn't meet the requirements for WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
There are 11 articles regarding her in languages other than English. What other requirements are there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.2.191 (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
There are 11 now, at the time of her death there were only 4 and 2 of those were barely stubs with no references, the other 2 were clearly clones of the English article. This is a clear indication that she was not sufficently internationally notable for inclusion. That 7 other non-English wikis have got round to adding articles after they heard that she died doesn't alter that. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack Layton

There is no mention of his death in the deaths section

Consensus here was to exclude. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Abu-Bakr Yunis Jabr

Was he famous enough for inclusion here? Ifore2010 (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

He certainly seems a marginal case. Most of the non-English articles are stubs and seem to be more or less cloned from the English one. I'd lean towards exclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 24 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} please add the magnitude earthquake in Turkey for October 23, 2011 http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/23/72-quake-in-turkey-kills-138-search-for-survivors-continues/ Jonathan.strickland (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I kind of doubt that is going to happen. I apologize if this seems crass but 138 deaths is not that horrible for a large earthquake. We've tried to discuss at Wt:RY how to come up with clearer inclusion standards for natural disasters, but in the end they basically are subject to the same standards as other events. There is likely to be little to no international impact from this event, tragic though it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
looks like the death toll is getting up there - if it gets confirmed at over 1000 (like some reports are saying) I'd certainly vote for inclusion. sure, it's 1% of haiti but still. watch this space I guess Whitehatnetizen (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I should probably clarify my position. Death toll is actually not a great metric to go by. Where is the line? Does it matter if they live in a country that has building codes, like Japan, as opposed to a country that does not, like Haiti? There's no way to codify that, so we must go by WP:RY's general criteria as opposed to our feelings about how many deaths is enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I've cancelled out the "edit semi-protected" for now, because this is clearly being discussed - and if there is agreement to make the change, I'm sure one of the experienced editors in this chat can just make the change. Otherwise - if an edit is required, and if there's consensus - please can someone add another {{edit semi-protected}}. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  06:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords

Who said not to include the 2011 Tucson shooting in the article markup? Sure, it's US-centric, but it's a big event. Excluding it seems ludicrous. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been discussed at length. The consensus is that it's insufficently notable for this article. Basically it's really not a big event outside the US. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Well that was just DerbyCountyinNZ's and a couple other guys' opinions, because they're upset that Wikipedia, founded in the US, isn't paying enough attention to their precious homeland. God forbid the most powerful country in the world is talked about more than New fu*king Zealand! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.231.176 (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
You might want to look at the section just below this one before making yourself sound silly ;) — Yerpo Eh? 07:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Have to agree with DerbyCounty on this one. An Assassination Attempt on one American MP/Congresswoman(?), whatever, doth not a Major International Event make. (And please don't "dis" our Country either thank you.) Kiwibeca (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

October 25, 2011 trim

I will remove some less notable or unsourced events from the list and put them here. Feelfree to discuss. I have rough criteria in mind, but typing them would be too long. Circeus 09:40, October 25, 2011 (UTC) The years are missing from the copied elements.

September 05 : Typhoon Talas hit western Japan, following to massivie rain and landslide in Kii Peninsula, according to Japanese Government document figure, 106 persons death, with worst typhoon disaster in Japan since 1976. [citation needed]

John McCarthy

October has been a bad month for computer guys. John McCarthy, father of LISP and AI pioneer died October 24th. He should be listed under deaths. Mg79 (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course he should be, thank for notifying. I added him now. — Yerpo Eh? 12:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Queensland and Victoria Floods

Why no mention of these, especially when the flooding in Brazil in Jan, and the current Flooding in Thailand are up on this Page? Australia is a fairly important Country Globaly, so surely it's approprate that thses events are mentioned here? Kiwibeca (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

possibly because a maximum of about 44 people died. it was on the world news apparently but it's not really of international significance. if it helps at all, I'm speaking as someone who who spent a week slogging through stinking mud and sludge cleaning out other people's houses in Brisbane. just hope it doesn't happen again this year  :-) Whitehatnetizen (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Just doean't seem fair really. Your Floods killed so few, because people had the sense to evacuate before things got really bad and the resources were there to assist them in doing that; our Earthquake killed relitivly few people because our Building Codes are of a high standard and arren't ubndermined by coruption, so somehow that makes them unimportant, globaly.(!) :-) I hope you haven't gotto go through it again this summer too. Kiwibeca (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Willy De Clerq

Although he had the nine foreign articles needed during his lifetime, I'm stuck to whether he should be included or not. Ifore2010 (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

He seems to have some international involvement, but his articles are all pretty insubstantial which indicates he was not particularly notable. Unless there is something to indicate that his contribution to the European Parliament or European Commision was substantial it seems he was little more than a local politican, which is not enough for inclusion here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Day of Seven Billion?

Why is this notable? Even the UN commission that set the day admits it's only accurate within a year or so, and scientific agencies estimate 2-year intervals starting next year. We do list UN commemorative years and decades, but days? Does anyone know how many UN commemorative days there are? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's true that the date is just a rough estimate, but it's as good an estimate as any, and the point is in raising the awareness of the population growth. Which is undoubtedly of utmost global importance, and there are lots of ways of expressing it, but not many of those are suitable for inclusion in a list of events. The alternative would be to put it under the "unknown date" section, but in this case, another problem would immediately arise - if the estimate is accurate within a year, under which year do we put it? This one? 2012? Both? — Yerpo Eh? 13:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The references in Day of Seven Billion suggests 2013 as containing the most likely actual day. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Which one apart from the report by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis? — Yerpo Eh? 15:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Reaching 7 billion could certainly be considered internationally notable. But the point at which that is reached is purely a guess and even attributing it to a specific year is barely credible. However, if the UN deems that the Day of Seven Billion mark this milestone then that should be included, provided it is emphasised that it is not the actual day but a randomly selected day of "celebration". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
some census number needs to be included since it is the only time this metric will ever be seen here - milestones of billions seems to be the best census number to use since it only occurs once every 12 years - the big question is to pick a date - UN seems best since it would be hoped to be the most neutral organization--70.162.171.210 (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy Rooney

Did he have ANY impact outside the USA? HiLo48 (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

His non-English articles suggest not. In any case he fails WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, he only has 8 non-english article, (and a 'simple-english'). I don't think he should be included. FFMG (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Conrad Murray conviction

It was headline news worldwide, deserves to be mentioned in this page. Ifore2010 (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is meant to include historically and internationally notable entries, not WP:News. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Michael Jackson's actual death was an internationally notable event. The conviction of his negligent doctor for involuntary manslaughter is not. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. But maybe the Jackson entry could be amended to reflect the now legally accepted cause of death. HiLo48 (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Christchurch earthquake?

Why is the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake not included in the events?


181 people were killed in this earthquake and other natural disasters are included on this list. Is there any reason that this earthquake has not been included, or is it an oversight?

--210.48.101.90 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length. Under the current criteria at WP:RY consensus has been that it is unsufficiently internationally notable for inclusion. A discussion here as to what the minimum numbers should be (if any) for natural disasters to be included in recent Year articles seems to have lapsed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Include it! Many international citizens died in the earthquake. It also affected insurance re-insurers worldwide. My opinion is that is needs to be included on the basis that many countries were affected by it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.2.191 (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, this has been discussed at length. Your comment provides no new arguments. — Yerpo Eh? 11:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
If you do not consider that INTERNATIONAL EFFECT, what do you consider international effect!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.2.191 (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Something internationally significant that doesn't occur regularly. I mean, insurance re-insurers?? Are you serious? If my private house burns down, it will probably affect some international re-insurer in some minor way. It's called globalization. Enough for inclusion here? No. — Yerpo Eh? 14:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I caught a mention of a revised estimate of the cost of rebuilding Christchurch on the radio this morning; NZ$20b, virtually all of which will be born by Insurance of some type;[citation needed] (EQC or Private.). Reinsurers are going to want to recover this cost, and they will do that through Premiums.[citation needed] The impact of Febuary's Earthquake *will* be felt gobaly because of this,[citation needed] so should be included here. Kiwibeca (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Still not something internationally significant, i.e. standing out qualitatively rather than just quantitatively in some marginal way. — Yerpo Eh? 14:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
"Marginal"?! I and my fellow Cantabrians haven't been able to go into Town since 22nd Feb. We won't be able to do so again until April next year, at the earliest. Some 1,000 buildings in the CBD are coming down; it's estimated that 10,000 houses will also need to be demolished. Upwards of 5,000 families; in many cases, whole Streets and Neighbourhoods, have been told that their Land is too badly damaged to be rebuilt on any time soon, and that they will need to move house. Many people are having Insurance headaches, which is impacting *hugely* on their Rebuild, we're still getting sizeble Aftershocks; a 5.5 just a couple of weeks ago, and Japan seems, to me, to be hogging the limelight unfairly, IMO. (With the greatest of respect to them, Japan is one of the largest Economies in the world, and doesn't really need the world's Charity. We're not, and we could really do with some big time assistance to try and put our City back together.) *You* try living through what we've lived through for the last 15 months or so Yepo, and see how "marginal" you think it is then.(!) Kiwibeca (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
So, this is basically about you, personally, feeling that Cantabrians don't get enough attention. That's cute, but you could've said so at the beginning so I wouldn't waste my time trying to explain that the event you encountered isn't one of the most important events on global scale this year. I also don't appreciate twisting of my words - I said that the international impact was marginal, that's all. I don't know where you got the idea that this page has anything to do with charitability or correcting perceived unfairness, but I assure you it's wrong. You might also want to read the NPOV policy. — Yerpo Eh? 13:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
"Cute"(!) Good one Yerpo, thank you.(!) For what it's worth though, I know all about POV's and Bias. As a matter of fact, I made an edit on this very page, just a few weeks ago because of it. The Feb Earthquake belongs on this page, and you won't convince me of anything to the contary. Kiwibeca (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Great to see how the Turkish earthquake gets a space on this page yet the Christchurch Earthquake does not! Obviously sarcasm in there!! As the CHCH earthquake effected the RWC venue it effected an international (yes you read right, that said INTERNATIONAL!) sporting event! Means for adding YES!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.129.63 (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I removed the Turkey earthquake, because it obviously fails the same criteria, so it's time to end this pointless "discussion" now. I don't see how consensus can be changed by a few editors personally affected by the event repeating irrelevant arguments. — Yerpo Eh? 12:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
It actually seems that you are the only one (maybe a few others) that object to adding to this event. I just do not understand how you can be so blind to the fact that this is an international event. During the earthquake the CTV building collapsed, killing most inside. Within this building was King's English School. Many, if not all, students of this school were foreign, and many died (about 70-90 odd). Therefore many countries were affected by the deaths. Therefore this is an international event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.137.56 (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hear, hear! Add the CHCH Earthquake already. (Or let us do it at least.) Kiwibeca (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't change the fact that the event is, internationally speaking, on the scale of incidents that probably occur by dozens each year (large fires, ferries sinking, building collapses, local floods, terrorrist attacks etc.). The only truly noteworthy part of it is the partial destruction of a medium-sized city, which, although indeed tragic, isn't so important outside NZ. It wouldn't even be near as widely reported if NZ wasn't a developed country, but as it is, it probably got more media attention than the 2010 Chile earthquake that devastated a metropolis three times the size of Christchurch (among other settlements) and caused almost three times as many casualties. As I said, the only people trying to add this were personally affected by the event, wanting to tell everybody as loud as possible what they experienced. Me and "a few others" are the ones regularly caring for these pages, trying to be neutral and to develop a set of standards for inclusion that would help in creating an overview of really globally important events each year. As for me, I'm done trying to convince you. — Yerpo Eh? 14:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I also take issue in the Christchurch earthquake not being listed. Ignoring personal bias to the event, as has been said this quake did command international attention on news outlets. It killed people from all around the world. It has required expertise from people around the world to demolish buildings (the hotel Grand Chancellor needing very technical deconstruction) and retrieve bodies (notably Japan who helped out). The earlier quake lead to a visit from Prince William and had the attention of the royal family. It affected insurance greatly, and will have international affects in that respect. It affected the international rugby world cup tournament. And its destruction was not "partial". It destroyed the main center of the city, and ruined many suburbs-- the damage was significant and has lead to a lot of demolition. And take note this is New Zealands second largest city. It is a hugely historical event for the country, and also has international acknowledgement and will and has affected people internationally. How this hasn't been realized yet has to be down to ignorance, its outrageous. There are other listings on the page that have far less international affected or acknowledgement. --203.173.187.186 (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Here, here. We concur. Add the earthquake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.3.29 (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Hosni Mubarak denies role in killing protesters". RTE. RTE. 3 August 2011. Retrieved 3 August 2011.
  2. ^ http://www.marketwatch.com/story/statement-by-apples-board-of-directors-2011-10-05 (Apple Statement)
  3. ^ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/10/05/steve-jobs-has-died-at-age-5]6/ (Forbes)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011/Archive_4&oldid=1142750061"