Jump to content

Talk:2011/Archive 5

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

FL-class

Would this article be suitable for FLC?

  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing. checkY I agree.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. ☒N Very short lead.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
    • (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.  Half done, it has most of it, but a few gaps.
    • (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.checkY I agree.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. checkY I agree.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
    • (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. checkY I agree.
    • (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. Half done. No pictures in the 'Events' section, but fine images in the 'Deaths' section.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day., except in response to the featured list process. checkY I agree.
    And, the one other (not listed):
  7. Citations. Every statistic must be cited adequately with reliable sources. Half done, the Deaths section has no references at all. I know that the major figures, like Steve Jobs or Muammar Gaddafi would have a lot around their deaths, but "minor" figures comapred to them like, Nikolai Andrianov or William Lipscomb...

Would it be able to make FL-Class through WP:FLC?

– Plarem (User talk contribs) 20:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps 2010 would be more suitable for such an attempt. Or this one at the start of the next year when it can be said it's complete. As for references, you might want to check Deaths in 2011, where every listing comes with a reference. None of the persons listed here is a minor figure in any meaning of the word, so this is a non-issue. — Yerpo Eh? 08:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I would call it an epic fail on stability. Uninformed/controversial changes are made and reverted on pretty much a daily basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be Good Faith Edits and Vandalism, which are not included in the Edit warring part? – Plarem (User talk contribs) 16:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Silvio Berlusconi resignation

I have seen this edit reverted by DerbyCountyinNZ (talk · contribs):

November 13 – The former EU commissioner Mario Monti is asked to form Italy's next government following the resignation of Silvio Berlusconi amid the country's escalating debt crisis.[1]

It was reverted with this edit summary:

Undid revision 460507057 by Wjfox2005 (talk)Rvt. Local politics.

I understand that WHO forms Italy's next government is local politics, but the EVENT of Berlusconi's resignation BECAUSE of the European sovereign debt crisis is NOT local politics.
WHY?

  1. The European sovereign debt crisis is, as Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, said, the biggest crisis in Europe since The Second World War.[1]
  2. He resigned amid that crisis, after budget reforms were passed.[2]
  3. Italy is the EU country with the most debt.[3]
  4. Even AMERICANS are bothered.[4]

I would like to see this added onto 2011. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 16:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

crystal ball until Italy economy defaults on obligations which i am quite confident will happen but by then everyone will have forgotten as usual to have noted the day berlisconi resigned - typical for the endless totalitarian behavior associated with keeping this article nearly devoid of any but the most prominant events to the point of neutering the article to death - and i will say again that there have been 5 major medical discoveries this year and not a single one is mentioned in this article--70.162.171.210 (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there anything unusual about the prime minster of Italy resigning? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
That's not really the question. The question is whether there is international significance to this particular resignation. Tough call. Obviously the European debt crisis is an international event with far reaching consequences. So was/is the Arab Spring, but this article is not for the daily blow-by-blow of either event. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

UK News

There is a lack of a British News that has happened throughout the year, the most prominent being the England Riots and there are also key events such as the death of two Red Arrows Pilots this year, the last time a Red Arrow died was 1988. Please add any other suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumncars1996 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

all of the items you are want to add have already been veted and by consensus, declined thru insufficent notability--70.162.171.210 (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think 2011 in the United Kingdom is the page you are looking for. — Yerpo Eh? 16:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is, thank you. - Drumncars1996 —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC).

Alfred Hilbe

Is he worthy for a mention in this page even though he was a head of state?, his English entry consists of only one line! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifore2010 (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Jani Lane's Death?

Jani Lane was the frontman of 80's hair band Warrant and died Aug. 11 2011. He was born in 1964. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.67.183 (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's taken 3 months for him to reach the WP:RY minimum. At the time of his death he had only 2 foreign language article, both clones of the English one, one had no references at all and the other had only his webpage and myspace page as references. Hardly an indication that he was sufficiently notable for inclusion here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Death of Dev Anand on Dec 4th, 2011

The young man of Indian Bollywood died in London on 4th December. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev_Anand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puneet1011 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

His non-English articles do not indicate that he is sufficiently internationally notable for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Death of Jagjit Singh on Oct 10th, 2011

The "Ghazal King" of Indian music died on October 10th, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagjit_Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puneet1011 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

His non-English articles do not indicate that he is sufficently internationally notable for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

November events

Usually by now there would be some notable events for november, since the month is just about complete. Just wondering when the information will be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryn Morgan (talk • contribs) 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a case of "filling in" a section just for the sake of it. Something notable has to happen. So far it appears that nothing that can be considered to be of international and historical notability (as required for inclusion in this article) has happened. C'est la vie. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Derby you are being way to overzealous. The original goal of the policy for exclusion was to stop articles from becoming obscenely large, there might not have been any political such events that happened in November, but there are some science ones that might be appropriate for this article. --134.153.102.154 (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Do specify them, if there are. The most notable, I think, was the Mars Science Laboratory launch, but it isn't exactly a cornerstone in Mars exploration. Still, could be added, I suppose. — Yerpo Eh? 08:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I was actually thinking the Metallic microlattice, lightest material ever known invention was the biggest science story of November. Including big Chemistry finds are often underrepresented in recent years articles. --Kuzwa (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Now let's see if there can be some notable events for december. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.146.140 (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Eradication of Rinderpest

Surely this should be added under August 8? It's only the second disease ever eradicated....GuzzyG (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


Nevermind.. I've just seen how much overzealous some people are on this list, so don't bother, no wonder this page is so skinny.GuzzyG (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

overzealous here i am the first to argue and have many times but even this has already been vetted here and is again --- EXCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
if something is this far back dont you think that it would be good to look back in the archives and find the old discusssion first--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for offending anyone, i'm new here and didn't read the archives. Sorry, i now understandGuzzyG (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

second photo after taylor

what should be the second photo after taylor for month of march deaths? - i say Geraldine Ferraro, she has 213 cited references --68.231.15.56 (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer Alberto Granado for the sake of balance - with G. Ferraro, it's 4 Americans in a row. The difference in the number of cited references reflects the western bias rather than importance, I think. — Yerpo Eh? 07:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd prefer a non-American, as mentioned by Yerpo, 4 Americans is too biased. Nikolai Andrianov won 15 Olympic medals (3rd all-time), of which 12 were in individual events (2nd all-time and leading male) which makes him my preference, but I'd go with Granado if that would help achieve consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I suggested Granado because he has the best and most conveniently-sized portrait available. Andrianov's would stretch down somewhere to July (or would look very poor if cropped) and for most of the others, we don't have free portraits. — Yerpo Eh? 14:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
If we were going only by how nice their picture looks I would definitely say Ferraro, But if it is one or the other of the other suggestions, yeah, the photo of Adrianov is terrible, I can't imagine how we could incorporate that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

UK Riots

The UK Riots started on the 4th August 2011, involved London, Manchester, Birmingham, etc. Was wondering why it was not on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NiallPVFC (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Because 2011 is for internationally notable events. The UK riots belong in 2011 in the United Kingdom. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Something doesn't addup...

Bin Laden is said to be dead on May 2nd and the cite says Obama announced him dead a day early. Fix please? 71.180.171.44 (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

2 May is correct as per his article. The cite has 1 May as that was the local time for the country of origin. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Jobs Death

Should Steve's death be listed under Events? It was a pretty giant event this year... SwimFellow (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, consensus here is that his entry in the Deaths section is sufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Dunn Is Not on the list of 2011 Deaths?!

Or is he not notable enough? :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.80.98 (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

discussed endlessly already --- EXCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well known actor/person. If this isn't notable i don't know what is.GuzzyG (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"Very well known"? In the US maybe, not the rest of the world. Which is why he belongs in 2011 in the United States, not here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Jackass is VERY well known, i'm in Australia and everyone here knew him, not just the US. Their movies were popular worldwide, plus he has 16 language articles of him, not in English. He's even more known then some of the people here already. But what can ya do, if you don't know him no-one does, right?GuzzyG (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm in Australia. Never heard of him. Never seen Jackass. The previews put me off. Slapstick died 70 years ago. (Or should have.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

All because you don't know him doesn't mean the majority doesn't, that's the point. I don't know anyone who knows of a Hungarian footballer or a Indian painter, does that mean they shouldn't be on the list? No. (they already are though) This guy is noticeable, i don't really care though as i've found out these year articles plus a few others are just the opinions of overzealous editors.GuzzyG (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather than attacking, and posting silly things like "i'm in Australia and everyone here knew him" (which just screamed out to be refuted), you could perhaps go hunting for some evidence. My interest was really just in countering your absolutism. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
As for evidence, at the time of his death, he was so "well known" that hardly anyone outside of English Wikipedia bothered to write anything about him. This is the criterion we use for evaluating. All because some anonymous under the nickanme GuzzyG knows him doesn't mean that majority does. The show was somewhat noticeable as a whole, Dunn, as an individual, wasn't. — Yerpo Eh? 07:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy to accept the decision of not adding him, however you best hop to it and remove the 2006 entry for Steve Irwin's death then... I'm pretty sure "hardly anyone outside of English Wikipedia bothered to write anything about him." yet he was added to the Deaths on the 2006 page. Perhaps some consistency in your criterion is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.185.2 (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


I'm sorry for offending anyone, i'm new here and didn't read the archives. Sorry, i now understand.GuzzyG (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

images again

So, now that Kim Jong Il has passed, a photo of him has been added to the deaths section. I think that is as it should be, but on my browser the formatting is pushing that image down into the "Nobel Prize winners" section. Of course anyone who read the caption (or had the slightest idea who he was) would realize it was a spillover, but still... Maybe we should just have one image like most other months, and at this point I would have to say Kim certainly had the most international notability out of all the notable persons who have died this month. As such I have gone ahead and removed the other image. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. One image is sufficient. A second should only be included if it does not break the display. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is CE before AD?

Why is the term "Common Era" placed before the term "Anno Domini?" "AD" is tremendously more common in use than CE and "AD" comes before "CE" alphabetically. There doesn't seem to be any prohibition to changing this in Wikipedia:Recent years. And it appears that the whole first section is locked without explanation. Is this just another instance of Christian bashing by the predominantly pagan Wikipedia editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romans9:11 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

When making an accusation of bias, it is usually a good idea not to make your own prejudicial remarks at the same time. I happen to agree that A.D. is quite obviously more common than C.E. in the English speaking world, but muddying the waters with accusations is unlikely to help bring this discussion to a satisfactory resolution. It is not just the first section but the enrtire article that is semi protected. This is only because we were getting uniformed/vandalistic additions to this article several times a day for several months, it is not related to this issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Why does it even matter? It's just like asking: "When I type 'C' in the searchbox in Wikipedia, why does Canada come first and China is further down the list? Is Wikipedia being racist?" These frivilous points should not even be brought up. Whenaxis (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Miss USA

Is Alyssa Campanella's winning of Miss USA crown significant enough to turn up on this page? If Miss USA could be mentioned here, shouldn't we mention the winners of similar titles from other countries as well? Netha Hussain (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:RY, annual awards do not merit inclusion. This article is in any case for international events which therefore excludes national beauty contests. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Not saying that Miss USA is important enough to garner reputation on this page. But if what User:DerbyCountyinNZ says is true about WP:RY, why is that the annual Noble Prize(s) appear on this page? Whenaxis (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Because the Nobel Prizes are one of the things explicitly stated in WP:RY to include on year pages. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 10:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Before someone uses some of the phrases above to include Miss World and Miss Universe competition results, awards which are either annual or not international are (usually) not included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Aw, c'mon, everyone knows the Nobel Prizes go to whoever looks best in the swimsuit competition. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the mental image. Ugh. — Yerpo Eh? 19:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I didn't see the Noble Prize section. Apologies. Whenaxis (talk)

Henry Cooper again.

I'm not sure, but I though it was bad form to add to archived stuff. I've readded him as even though he was never world Champion he was Commonwealth and European Champion as well as the only Boxer to recieve a British or Papal Knight Hood (On which page he is listed as a notable member of the order), the Only British Boxer to win three Lonsdale Belts, The first man to win BBC sports personality of the year twice and the only one of the three people who's done this who isn't an F1 driver but most of all I think he should be here as he knocked down Cassius Clay who Cheated against him. (Morcus (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC))

Edit request on 25 December 2011

December 19 - North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il was pronounced dead 67.85.228.82 (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

He is in the Deaths section, that is sufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
if it had been winston churchill, head of a democracy at a key point in humanities struggle against gas chambering nazis, then yes, but a puppet communist of a satilite state, a proxy for chinese agression, who are you kidding?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 09:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Very few deaths are in the "Events" section. I doubt that Winston's would be. On the other hand "Il" might be appropriate as (1) the announcement of his death was days after his actual death, and (2) the death of an rogue absolute dictator, even that of a small (not satellite or proxy) state, might be of international significance. Nonetheless, I don't think it appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I've closed this request, as it does not appear to be supported by consensus. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2011

Dev Anand : Indian film actor, writer, director and producer known for his work in Hindi cinema, died on 3 December 2011.

67.246.33.98 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well known in India, but not internationally as required for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 January 2012

In the 2011 obits, American singer, songwriter Phoebe Snow, b.1950 and died in April, is omitted.

Scaddle (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done See WP:RY for the inclusion criteria used on this page, which is a much higher standard than WP:N. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Occupy the world

Shouldn't there be a heading for it on October 15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.255.226 (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Becouse occupy movement seems to be a important phenomenon in current social life? Either October 15, July 30 (Occupy Dataran, first but obscure occupation) or September 17 (OWS) should be marked. Not all of those dates, but at least one. It seems highly unlikely that beginning of Occupy Movement will not be seen as one of most important events during Fall of 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.117.121 (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Cite? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
"Important phenomenon"? Not really. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't think such police presence don't suggest something important is happening? http://occupylosangeles.org/?q=node/2442 Add persistence despite numerous abuses. Protests in multitude of places for several weeks are not worth mentioning? 23:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.117.121 (talk)

Protests occurred in over 30 countries on six continents on October 15th, something must be said. That is worse than leaving out the Russian Revolution in 1917 or March of Selma in 1965. Millions of people around the world in almost every major city were involved in a movement calling for changes and that isn't important? I think wikipedia has the wrong priorities if that is the case. Not to mention it is the largest movement asking for a single change in the history of the world. No movement has ever been on six continents before at this amount, not even the socialist challenge as Howard Zinn puts it in the early 1900s. Stidmatt (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think Occupy the World is as notable as the Russian Revolution you are sadly lacking in perspective. The Occupy Movement has achieved precisely Nothing in the way of any actual change of legislation in any country. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, comparison with the Russian Revolution is silly. But something big did happen, whose ultimate impact is as yet unknown, and Wikipedia's rules against synthesis and original research and demands for sources are getting in the way. No individual protest on its own (except maybe Occupy Wall Street) is significant. It's the sum of the protests that's notable. Almost everyone outside places where they censor the news is aware of it. For Wikipedia not to attempt to describe the movement as a phenomenon of 2011 is quite remiss. If the ultimate result is big, we wouldn't want to have ignored the start. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The neatrality of the Occupy Movement article is disputed which probably means the claims of its importance and impact are being exaggerated. If and when there is some actual historically significant result of the protests (and this would need to be in more than one country to be regarded as international) then it might be included. Until then it is a widespread but otherwise insignificant nuisance which will likely be forgotten in a few years except by those directly involved. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
There's far too much POV in that post for it to be a helpful contribution to this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
And your claim that Wikipedia rules are censoring the discussion is NPOV??? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely. Saying that the rules make it difficult to consider this item says absolutely nothing about my opinion on whether it should be here or not. My opinion is that it's unfortunate that we cannot discuss it properly. HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
What if it's simply too early to discuss it properly? Is it really so hard to understand that this page will still be here and open to editing in, say, two years when and if this event proves important? You talk as if what is on this page now was cast in stone. — Yerpo Eh? 11:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point. Thanks. I still think Wikipedia has a problem reporting linked activities that are distributed over time and/or space. HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
True, it's rather difficult to present long-term processes in a list of dates. Maybe we should think about introducing a new heading for "Ongoing events" (or something similar) with a brief summary of such events (Arab spring, Iraq war etc. for last year). — Yerpo Eh? 14:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Bouazizi

January 4 – Mohamed Bouazizi, Tunisian street vendor (b. 1984) - nominated for INCLUSION by exception to WP:RY

I have the same problem with medical information that constantly gets removed from the year article. Other editors say that you cannot prove that the new discovery has had any effect, well, flat-out, hands down, the tragic end of life of Mohamed Bouazizi has had a proven effect; how can you say differently now?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

From the earlier discussion (what little there was):

This was the guy who set himself on fire, sparking the Tunisian revolution and some would say the subsequent protests, including in Egypt. We are including the Egyptian protests in the article, and he has significantly more than the 9 required foreign articles. I think the addition is certainly worth serious consideration (perhaps in future years he will be viewed similarly to Tank Man, despite the major differences in the surrounding events).
Also: the edit that was undone regarding Bouazizi's death misstated the date he died - it was January 4, not January 20. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 18:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.15.56 (talk)


The only notable event in his life was his death, which I don't think is sufficient for inclusion under the "Deaths" section. However, that event is widely considered as the spark that ignited the revolution, so it might be included within events for January. As the situation was, it's rather far-fetched to say that without him, events would have unfolded very differently, so considering the whole picture, Bouazizi as a person is still quite insignificant. Just look at all the articles - they all talk about the fateful event and its consequences, there's almost nothing about the man himself. — Yerpo Eh? 11:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. He was not notable (as required for inclusion in the Deaths section), whether his death is notable (as required for inclusion in the Events section) is debatable, I think not. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
That's the whole reason why he is important. He ended his otherwise "insignificant" life in one very important act. He needs to be in this article. There is no requirement that people included in the Deaths section have "lots of notable events in their lives." Wrad (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Besides the fact that WP:RY is being misread quite badly here (the words "notable" and "notability" are nowhere to be found in the guidelines for inclusion of births and deaths), besides the fact that Time magazine, the New York Times, and many other news sources have established his notability, and besides the fact that his name was shouted in the streets throughout the Arab Spring, besides the fact that he has been named person of the year by the Times in London, besides the fact that he was awarded the 2011 Sakharov Prize for Independent Thought by the European Parliament, and besides the fact that people in Algeria, Egypt, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and the Netherlands (that's three continents and five countries, if you're counting) have immolated themselves in a similar manner in protest, often in directly-stated mimicry of Bouazizi, folks, the rule is ten foreign language articles. The guy has 33. It would be an "exception" to the rules not to include him. Enough said. Wrad (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Dev Anand

I removed

  • December 3 – Dharam Dev Pishorimal Anand, better known as Dev Anand, was an Indian film actor, writer, director and producer known for his work in Hindi cinema. Part of the Anand family, he co-founded Navketan Films in 1949, with his elder brother Chetan Anand. (b. 1923)

Not only is this entry much longer than any in the deaths, there is little evidence of his notability outside India. The article looks like a bad translation from Hindi, even before his death, but there were 12 languages in place, so it's not obviously a violation of WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

See #Edit request on 28 December 2011 above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

event categorisation?

Hi all, didn't want to ruffle any feathers by just removing things, but I've noticed there are quite a few entries on the 2011 page that are categorised with "Arab Spring". while I realise that this is a significant on-going thing, I don't believe that entries on year pages should be categorised similar to that. the Arab spring should be linked on all the actual pages related to each event and is therefore unnecessary to have on this 2011 (or any other year for that matter) page. It is the equivalent of categorising Osama's death as "USA's War on Terror: Osama Bin Laden killed" or "USA's War on Terror: American troops pull out of Iraq" etc.

thoughts anyone? again, I realise this may be a sensitive topic, I'm not arguing about whether the Arab spring is important or not, just using it as an example of unnecessary categorisation of year page entries Whitehatnetizen (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Small Note on Occupy

Isn't Occupy an internationally significant event? 1000s of protesters worldwide. I understand it's been discussed before, but I'd like to bring it up again. SwimFellow (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Still not really important. If they ever achieve anything it might be worth mentioning, at the moment it's just another protest, the only reason it's widespread is it gives serial protesters something else to protest about. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"Occupy Wall Street has done more in the short time they’ve been out there than I’ve been able to do in more than the last eleven years trying to draw attention to some of the same problems we have to address,” said former President Bill Clinton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.244.66.111 (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. They achieved quite a bit, including widespread public recognition of their message. Achievement isn't measured merely by government change. Wrad (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Whether individual users here believe there is merit to what they have done is obviously not the point. It is an international movement and I agree that it should be mentioned briefly in the article, not sure where and what to say exactly though. It is worth noting that there are currently articles on Occupy Wall Street on nearly 40 other Wikipedias. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Derby, we have a three continent rule. To go against that rule you need a consensus. One person against does not make a consensus, neither does two people. We have the rules for a reason. And just in case anyone doubts that it meets the criteria, see below...

News sources reporting on the Occupy movement:

  1. AlJazeera (Qatar): http://aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F39F8293-C172-4018-9725-1E1184EED075.htm?GoogleStatID=9
  2. The Guardian (UK): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/occupy-america-protests-financial-crisis
  3. Washington Post (US): http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/occupy-wall-street-protests-go-global/2011/10/15/gIQAp7kimL_story.html
  4. Tehran times (Iran): http://www.tehrantimes.com/opinion/94137-the-driving-factors-behind-occupy-wall-street
  5. Jakarta Post (Indonesia): http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/01/03/it-s-time-a-new-idea-a-new-ideology.html
  6. Jornada da Brasil (Brazil): http://www.jb.com.br/sociedade-aberta/noticias/2012/01/03/a-coreia-do-norte-para-alem-da-ditadura/
  7. Sydney Morning Herald (Australia): http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/occupy-sydney-protesters-charged-after-being-found-in-sleeping-bags-in-martin-place-police-20111216-1oxdw.html
  8. News24 (South Africa): http://www.news24.com/search?q=occupy

There you go, then. Six continents. Every one but Antarctica. And there's more where that came from... Wrad (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Start of worldwide protests that last for over 100 days, with no sign of ending, take place in over 2700 towns, result in over 4200 arrests are not worth mentioning? (all numbers I quote here are from wiki page about this movement) 87.207.117.121 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Mohamed Bouazizi and the Occupy movement additions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Mohamed Bouazizi be added to the list of deaths in 2011? (Relevant wikiguidelines: WP:RY#Births)


and


Should the Occupy movement be added to the list of events? (Relevant wikiguidelines: WP:RY#Events)


Wrad (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


Threaded discussion

Bouazizi

There is a consensus to include Bouazizi under events, rather than deaths, and was already added by Yerpo. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Support

Support inclusion The minimum criteria for including someone in the "Deaths" section is that their Wikipedia page be translated into at least 10 languages besides English. Mohamed Bouazizi's has been translated into 32 languages. Clearly he meets the criteria for inclusion. However, it doesn't stop there. I invite anyone to read Bouazizi's article and look at what it says and the sources it cites. Bouazizi was a major figure in the Arab Spring, easily among the most significant international events this year. He was given a posthumous award by the European Parliament for his act of protest. He has been featured in Time magazine, the New York Times, and several other major news organizations as among the most influential figures of 2011. The Times in London has named him "Person of the Year." He absolutely should be included. This is a no-brainer. Wrad (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Support inclusion per Wrad. Yes, he wasn't notable before his death, but his death really is a significant event. There's nothing in the guidelines so far as I can tell that say that alone should prevent him from being included, and as such the decisions of previous years can be a precedent, but shouldn't constrain us. Though I can see including it under events, instead of deaths. --Quintucket (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Support inclusion per editor Wrad. No strong objection to him being listed under events if thats an acceptable compromise, but for me he's easilly noteable enough to go under deaths. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong support - Either under Deaths or Events section. A seminal event in the Arab Spring, and captures the zeitgeist. Widely reported world-wide. The fact (as described below in Oppose) that the death itself was the only thing that made him notable would perhaps suggest putting him into the Events section, rather than the Deaths section. On the other hand, it seems more logical to put him in the Deaths section. But omitting him entirely from the article would make the article weaker. [invited to respond by RfC bot] --Noleander (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - under Events, not Deaths, per above and below. Selery (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Yes, there is no brain required — his death was notable, but as an event. He had no Wikipedia articles (including en:) before his death, so WP:RY is out the window. Shouldn't be under deaths; possibly under events, but it seems unlikely to be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  • First of all his death itself wasn't what was most notable, it was the fact that he set himself on fire in despair and protest, an event that occurred some time before his death. Second of all, there is no requirement in WP:RY that Bouzazi have any articles before his death in order to be included. The requirement is that he have more than ten articles now, which he does. You can't make up guidelines to suit your tastes and ignore thousands of news sources across the world. We can list the death of a Swedish hockey player, a bunch of American actresses and singers, but not the man who news sources state started the Arab Spring? Sounds like something is very wrong here. Wrad (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose As stated by Arthur Rubin he was insignificant until his death. He is only notable for his death and as with others in previous Years who have been only notable for their death, that is insufficent for inclusion in the Deaths section. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, as stated before by me and others, the only notable event in his life was his death. As a comment to the above claim:
his death itself wasn't what was most notable, it was the fact that he set himself on fire in despair and protest, an event that occurred some time before his death - it was the cause of his death, so it's undistinguishable from it, really. — Yerpo Eh? 07:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  • What a surprise. We have the same old big three uniting together. You guys are making up non-existent notability criteria. Show me where in the guidelines it says that if a person is "only notable because of x" they can't be included. Wrad (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow, now I'm one of the big, thanks for the compliment. Just for the record, I also think Bouazizi's self-immolation should be mentioned under events. It's just that as a person, he wasn't on par with other people listed under deaths (in importance, be it famous or infamous). I've been saying this for a while, and I say it again: the use of the term "notability" around RY talk pages is confounded, which is why I avoid it - of course everything and everybody discussed around here is notable, but that's a criterion for having an article about them, not being listed as one of the most important events or people in a year. The lack of specific guidelines doesn't change that - WP:RY does say that "many names might not merit inclusion, even if they have enough non-English articles". As the rest of Wikipedia, guidelines are a work in progress. — Yerpo Eh? 21:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I am also very frustrated with the casual tossing around of the word "notable" on this page. The word is not used on WP:RY regarding Deaths, and yet people quote it as if it is. Ick.
On another note, I'm having trouble seeing how one could say that the event of his suicide was notable but that he himself was not. He is notable because of the event. The event is notable because of him. He is the one who did it. If he hadn't done it, it wouldn't be notable. Since many people appear to be in favor of this arrangement, perhaps one of them could enlighten me? Wrad (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
You might have noticed that not many words are used on WP:RY regarding Deaths at all, so that's not really an argument if we want to prevent too broad interpretation of the guidelines which would make a year list even less useful.
The same dilemma is covered by WP:1E (see also WP:BLP1E) - as you can see, guidelines state that "the general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person". If taken very strictly, those guidelines would even prevent the creation of an article on Bouazizi, let alone his inclusion in a Deaths list, but consensus overruled that. More broadly speaking, Bouazizi's role is very similar to that of the Tank Man - as a person, the Tank Man is so insignificant that he hasn't even been identified and his act was minor in absolute terms, but the turn of events made him a symbol. So it doesn't really matter who he was and the title "Tank Man incident" would still accurately describe that article's content.
So to repeat, I support adding Bouazizi's act under events, which you and many other people generally agree with, according to comments. Is it ok if we do this or not? — Yerpo Eh? 07:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, if Wikipedians have decided that Bouazizi is an exception to the 1E rule, like the tank man, then that is just more evidence that he should be added, in my opinion, but that still has nothing to do with the guidelines for year pages. WP:RY says nothing about 1E and does not say the word "notable" in its guidelines for Birth or Death inclusions. If we want to add that criteria, that's fine, but it's inappropriate to wield it as if it was in the guideline when it is not. As for adding him as an event, let's talk about what the text would say. Wrad (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The word "notable" is wielded as it was an argument. Which it is. Nobody is referring to it as a guideline. Even if the choice of the word is a bit off, the rationale behind is sound - an attempt to filter people that died in a particular year to include only the most important. As for the event, it could be something like this (plus appropriate links and references):
  • 4 January - Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi dies after setting himself on fire a month earlier in protest against harassment and humiliation by the local authorities. His death incites a series of anti-government protests in various Arab countries starting with Tunisia, collectively termed "Arab Spring".
I left out the mention of outcomes of those protests, those are dealt with in other entries. — Yerpo Eh? 17:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I would say "his self-immolation and death" because protests were incited mere hours after his suicidal act, but he died some time later. Most of the really big stuff, though, happened after his death (for example, President Ben Ali fleeing the country). Wrad (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
That's ok too, of course, but it would make the entry fall into 2010. — Yerpo Eh? 18:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it would. The event is still his death, which occurred in 2011. We are just making it clear what started when. Wrad (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, it was you who argued that the self-immolation was more crucial, but feel free to edit my proposal. — Yerpo Eh? 18:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Revised version:

4 January - Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi dies after setting himself on fire a month earlier in protest against harassment and humiliation by the local authorities. His self-immolation and death incite a series of anti-government protests in various Arab countries starting with Tunisia, collectively termed "Arab Spring". -- Wrad (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, I only took the liberty of fixing one grammatical error. — Yerpo Eh? 19:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Excessively detailed for a Year article! More appropriately:

4 January - Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi dies after setting himself on fire a month earlier, leading to anti-government protests in Tunisia and later other Arab nations. These protests become known collectively as the Arab Spring.

DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Better. Wrad (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment It seems to me as if he should be mentioned somewhere - if not listed in the deaths, then in the events section. It's pretty undeniable that his death was a significant event in 2011. SmartSE (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Include in events as per comments above; I can see merit in both arguments, but until his death he wasn't notable, so therefore it seems to make sense to put it into the events list. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be an agreement about this, so I added the above under Events for January. — Yerpo Eh? 08:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Occupy movement

There is a clear consensus for inclusion of the event. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Support
  • Support inclusion The minimum criteria for inclusion of events, according to WP:RY, is that the event have a demonstrated international significance as indicated by references to news sources from at least three different continents reporting on it. Every continent except Antarctica has not only reported on the Occupy protests, they have also had Occupy protest occur in their own countries. Again, have a look at the Occupy movement article and its cited sources. The protests were inspired by movements in Spain and the Middle East, and were initiated by a Canadian group. Since their beginning, protests have occurred in 82 countries worldwide.

In case anyone is still doubting, here is a small sampling of the news sources worldwide that have reported on the Occupy movement:

  1. AlJazeera (Qatar): http://aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F39F8293-C172-4018-9725-1E1184EED075.htm?GoogleStatID=9
  2. The Guardian (UK): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/occupy-america-protests-financial-crisis
  3. Washington Post (US): http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/occupy-wall-street-protests-go-global/2011/10/15/gIQAp7kimL_story.html
  4. Tehran times (Iran): http://www.tehrantimes.com/opinion/94137-the-driving-factors-behind-occupy-wall-street
  5. Jakarta Post (Indonesia): http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/01/03/it-s-time-a-new-idea-a-new-ideology.html
  6. Jornada da Brasil (Brazil): http://www.jb.com.br/sociedade-aberta/noticias/2012/01/03/a-coreia-do-norte-para-alem-da-ditadura/
  7. Sydney Morning Herald (Australia):http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/occupy-sydney-protesters-charged-after-being-found-in-sleeping-bags-in-martin-place-police-20111216-1oxdw.html
  8. News24 (South Africa): http://www.news24.com/search?q=occupy

There you go, then. Six continents. All but Antarctica. And there's more where that came from. Clearly the Occupy movement is significant enough to be included on this page. Wrad (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support and Comment I cannot think of an equivalent global movement to the Occupy Movement in my lifetime. That so many people in so many places, with no formal connections, could be mobilised in such a way is highly notable. I would also make comment that there is an innate problem with politically oriented activities like this. It's inevitable that active supporters will want to say that it has been a huge success with big impact, while those opposed to the movement's goals could be tempted to say that the movement "has had no consequences of any significance", or similar. I suggest that extreme views need to be discounted. But it certainly happened (and is still happening), and almost everybody in all parts of the world where news is not censored will have heard of it. Not sure what else can compare with that. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I wish I could have articulated it this well. "Success" is a subjective judgement that we should stay away from. Let's just report what happened in 2011, please, without passing judgment. Wrad (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The Protester is Time's person of the year "In a new book from TIME, What Is Occupy? Inside the Global Movement, our journalists explore the roots and meaning of the uprising over economic justice. I see you already include events which are much less significant on a global scale: A Kenyan oil pipeline explosion, deaths in Brazil (no more significant than traffic accidents except it's sort of unique to the year) and even the wedding of a couple of obsolete cultural symbols in a single European country. Also, the end of the Shuttle program and the space program, which is arguably of very little global significance (but leaving out most progress in science). Certainly, the things like earthquakes which merely killed people are of very little significance globally. The Occupy Movement is many times more significant than those, if only because it has effected the minds of the populations of many nations. It seems you include things just because people get interested in them, like the royal wedding. Occupy has had huge press, and as with the capture of Osama bin Laden, you include things which are mostly of symbolic importance. Be——Critical 05:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Although you made some good points I just want to make a note about the royal wedding remark you made, Prince William is a future head of state of 16 countries not just a single European one, I think thats a possible reason why that one was included. Pro66 (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
LOL... could be... I didn't know that. Be——Critical 17:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support All the top analysts Ive seen in the Financial Times list Occupy in their new year reviews looking back at 2011, this includes even the exclusive lists that have less than a dozen items. Perhaps folk arent seeing the massive impact of Occupy as our article was focussed too much on the common person's perspective not on the effects on the elite? To highlight the consequences of the movement, the main article has been edited so it now shows Financial Times saying the movement altered the terms of the global political debate, Paul Mason saying Occupy is on everyones lips at the G20, shaping responses to the global crises, and has a "profile to die for" among the super-elite, etc... Even in Spain the movement has had hundreds of concrete successes at local level and at national level caused several important laws to be passed including a law limiting how much banks can reclaim from debtors. You can see sources supporting these statements if you look at the recent edit to Occupy Movement (Ps Admin Rubin's phrase "no consequences of any significance" does nicely reflect what some good analysts have been saying about the Spanish protests so I shamelessly stole that phrase for the main article). FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Amen to that. The idea that the movement was not significant is in many ways astonishingly America-centric and ignorant of the global facts. Wrad (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - The coverage has been very widespread, both in English-speaking press, and outside the English-speaking world. That, plus the longevity of the movement, plus the important social and economic issues underlying the movement, suggest inclusion. [invited to comment by RfC bot]. --Noleander (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - The news media has carried thousands of news articles about OWS and dozens of editorials written by well-known journalists. It has been mentioned hundreds of times on both national TV stations and smaller local stations. Public reaction to the movement has been polled numerous times by several well-known pollsters, including Gallop. Every Republican presidential candidate has given their view on the movement. It has been suggested that it has already had an effect on legislation in the U.S. Camps continue around the world, and those that have been closed continue to work in groups and maintain internet communications. Some groups are beginning to work with long-standing groups (see Occupy Homes for example) to bring about change. I could go on... Gandydancer (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
You fail to specify which news media, but the rest of your argument suggests you are referring the US. This is 2011 (for internationally notable events) not 2011 in the United States. Also (in my opinion) WP:Notnews applies here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Derby, once again, please actually read peoples' posts. I have already provided quite a few non-US news sources for this, which you continue to ignore. They're still there! Have a look anytime you like.
Perhaps you need to be made more aware of your own country's participation in this. Have a look:
Open your eyes! In the meantime, consensus is clearly coming down for inclusion of the movement on the page. Wrad (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
So it's been reported in the NZ news. Big deal! The following quote form the Occupy movement article sums that up nicely:

Other commentators have taken a more critical view, suggesting the occupy movement has been a disruptive waste of time.

It may not be the case in other countries but in NZ the majority of protestors are those that will protest anything. They have achiveved precsiely nothing useful. In fact apart from a (recent) minor change to a law in Spain and other "local" successes the protest has achieved nothing tangible anywhere, unless you count politicians paying lip-service in what is probably just a vote-garnering exercise. The movement may achieve soomething worthwhile in the long run, but it hasn't yet. If an events notability rests in its widespread nature rather than actual importance then this qualifies easily. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Once again, you've gruffly brushed aside facts inconvenient to you and your position as meaningless. Sounds to me like you are letting your political opinions cloud your judgment, Derby. We are supposed to try to be neutral here. We can't just take what one small set of commentators (the ones you quote) have said and call that the real truth! That is the very definition of bias. Surely you can see that. The movement has achieved things all over the world. Many of those things have already been mentioned. Your dismissing them hasn't taken that away. Protests have happened worldwide. They have been widely reported. There is nothing to argue here. A consensus has been reached and it's time to move on. Wrad (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Has the editor read the Occupy movement article? Gandydancer (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Unified protest movements in 1,000 cities leading to organization and direct action against banks, ports, governments, and police? Yeah, that's "significant consequences." Selery (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  • Weak oppose. 3 continents is necessary, not sufficient, for inclusion. And, I'd have to say that the movement, like the movement in Spain, has had no consequences of any significance. Arab Spring has already had significant consequences. Still, on this one, I could be convinced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Why wouldn't the hundreds of thousands who moved from banks to credit unions qualify as "significant consequences"? Selery (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose''The significance of this is being overstated. The article lacks neutrality. Until that lack of neutrality is resolved and actual international and historical significance is established (which is possible) it should be excluded. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Derby, I am at a complete loss as to how much more I can do to establish the international and historical significance of this event. Are you reading the links I am posting? Are you following the news on this? And let me get this straight... You say that it should be excluded because the article is not neutral, but if it was neutral, the even would be included. Huh??? So lets get on with it and include it so that it can be more neutral! Wrad (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • STRONG OPPOSE. Unlike the guy who set himself on fire who should be in the article (if some patent clerk called Einstein had killed himself the day he published some insane article about how "speed" has a limit, he would still be included in a year article for deaths), the "Oppose Wall street" movement is the most heinous use of "yellow" journalism I have seen in a long time. Each day the mainstream news is filled with events by communist jounalism, or carnaval barkers to the masses - you take your choice for naming them, that choose to cover events of absolutely no lasting significance. Yes, Arab Spring is an event, it has brought down dictatorships (for good or bad we have yet to see), but Occupy is a tiny portion of the populace that is miscontent and show up to voice it. The most heinous case of yellow communist journalism occurs each day in every large city in the world when a "fire"-burning house is covered on TV - the problem is fascination with abombination, or as it were, that state of the human mental processes whereby abnormal or entropy is accelerated and humans sense the curiosity of the acceleration (the same house would decay to ashes if left alone for 10,000 years). Covering Occupy is just lazy journalists that would cover any group of 35 protesters that show up somewhere because it is easy to go and video record any "schedualed" event.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Please keep your personal opinions about 15o protesters and journalists to yourself. It will make the discussion so much clearer. It would also help if you didn't make such obviously invalid comparisons as in your first sentence. — Yerpo Eh? 14:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
As soon as you threw the word communist in there you lost all credibility. After that, it seems you just lost it. Most incoherent post I've seen for some time. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
oh my god - that aweful word ... i hate to break it to you but the mainsteam media is 99% controled by communitsts ... hell i think it is a requirement to get into journalism school these days--68.231.15.56 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but... lol. — Yerpo Eh? 11:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.

Text in dispute

Here's the info Derby and Arthur keep reverting out, if anyone's curious:


Under 'Events' for September


Under "Deaths" for January 4



Wrad (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

January death image

No disprespect to Mr. Rafferty, but I would suggest that the more notable death from January would be Ali-Reza Pahlavi, one of the scions of the Shah's dynasty who took his own life, shocking the Iranian exile community. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

How is he more important? — Yerpo Eh? 07:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's all rather subjective of course, but an aging pop star dying from organ failure cause by alcoholism seems to me a tad less noteworthy than a prince taking his own life. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Note that we are talking about a "prince" with no claim to power in his country whatsoever, being merely somebody almost the first in line to be the head of a family long fallen from grace. No disrespect to mr. Pahlavi, but I honestly can't see how an empty title is more noteworthy than mr. Rafferty's work. — Yerpo Eh? 22:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

i argued against the self-destructive one-hit wonder back when he was first placed there but the problem is there are already two more famous actresses on the page so Ann Francis is out of luck due to balancing issue

and there are already 4 heads of state to rule out the royal--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

September 11 10th anniversery

Doesn't anyone else think the tenth anniversery of 9/11 should be here? Especially the opening of the memorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.166.0.1 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:RY anniversaries are not included in Recent Year articles. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yule

You forgot to add Yule also known as the winter solstice to the list of important religious dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.109.219 (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Important to which important contemporary religion? — Yerpo Eh? 08:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Taylor, Elizabeth posed.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Taylor, Elizabeth posed.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Taylor, Elizabeth posed.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Berlusconi resignation

There was a weak consensus on November 2011 whether or not to include Berlusconi's resignation. 3 out of 2 agreed it should be excluded. I would like to restart the discussion. I agree with The points on the previous talk page on why to include it. Thoughts?--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Presidents resign all the time for a wide variety of reasons. As with the vast majority of such resignations there was no significant (if any?) international impact in this case and there was no substantial change in the mode of government of the country, which is really what would be required for inclusion in an international article such as this. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
i was to say include, if you look at the archives, BUT, if and only if Italy thereafter banks collapsed and thus resignation would be initial event, BUT, as of today it is still just crystal ball and to be EXCLUDED--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Mekong River massacre

I'm adding the Mekong River massacre with the following justifications:

  • Deadliest attack on Chinese nationals abroad in modern times.
  • Top news in China and Thailand for weeks, and widely reported elsewhere.
  • Four countries directly involved: China, Burma, Thailand, and Laos.
  • Suspected killers include Burmese drug lord and nine elite Thai anti-narcotics soldiers.
  • China suspends shipping on the Mekong in response.
  • China reaches unprecedented agreement with Burma, Thailand, and Laos to jointly patrol the Mekong, projecting influence beyond its border.

-Zanhe (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Please wait for consensus, rather than just your argument. I'm not going to comment on your arguments at this time, but I don't agree that, even if all your points are accurate, it would be adequately notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
13 deaths barely qualifies as a massacre (these days anyway). 4 countries involved is not significant either, countries have discussions at all levels all the time, unless there is an actual outbreak of war such an event is hardly more significant than many others. I see no justification for including this. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Readd Joplin tornadoes?

I think that the tornadoes in Joplin should be re-added. The death toll was very large, and was part of a large outbreak that killed 242 people. I think it makes sense to add this one line stating this occurred. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There was a previous consensus to exclude this here. You should get a change in consensus before including it. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much consensus there at all, seemed more like some disjointed (and at times rude and misinformed) conversation between a few editors, at least two of whom argued for inclusion. In addition, it seems like there seems to be some confusion (certainly understandable for non-weather-buffs) about the different tornado-related events that happened in 2011. There were two major tornado disasters in the United States last year:
  1. The April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak; specifically, the April 27 event
  2. The 2011 Joplin tornado of May 22
    • By a large margin the costliest single tornado on record ($2.8 billion)
    • Deadliest single tornado in the United States in over 60 years (~160 killed)
    • Meets 3-continent rule (BBC, News Limited, Mail & Guardian)
In my opinion a case could be made for both of these events to be included; they both meet the 3-continent rule, and both were world-record events with high impact both in damage and loss of life. However, I can understand there being hesitance to include two tornado-related events so close to one another, so if I had to choose, I'd choose the April 27 outbreak as it was a much more widespread event, and broke at least two records (costliest outbreak and most tornadoes in an outbreak). However, I believe that the Joplin tornado was covered much more widely (the BBC just did a 1-year follow-up piece). If it were up to me I'd include both, but I'd argue that at least the April 27 outbreak should be included. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 00:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the qualifiers that have to be appended in order for these events to be special ("single-day", "single-tornado", "in-over-60-years" etc.) remind me of the cruft that fills the Guinness World Records books. The point is that both events were of strictly local influence, and they were of a "world record" scale simply because tornado outbreaks are almost exclusive to the States. They pale in comparison to really catastrophic weather events. Loss of life, while tragic, was several times lower than the rough threshold that seems to be the current consensus (on the scale of 1000 casualties), and damage needs to be put in perspective by acknowledging that we're talking about the world's strongest economy. A poorer and smaller country would definitely have to request international aid if the damage was this large, whereas the USA doesn't have a problem dealing with it alone. To repeat, it is my opinion that those events were local, with no international influence whatsoever, and thus do not merit inclusion here. 2011 in the United States of course, but they just aren't among the world's most important events for 2011. — Yerpo Eh? 07:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned in the previous discussion, It was not the deadliest in the US and no where near the the deadliest in the world.
As for the cost, I am not sure this was the costliest, it depends largely of the adjusted $ value of where the tornado struck. The Daulatpur-Salturia Tornado might have cost +2bn in damage, (the article does not say).
I still think it should be excluded. FFMG (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
No one's claiming it's the deadliest in the world; I don't see how that's relevant. But if we're taking disasters and plopping them into other countries, I'm sure if you took the April 27 outbreak and put it in Bangladesh it would be the deadliest on record. I can see the arguments above for excluding the Joplin tornado, and I'm through pressing for inclusion of that one, but the April 27 outbreak was both the largest (by numbers) and most damaging (by cost) tornado outbreak in history. The "single-day" qualifier was included because it's hard to quantify exactly what constitutes a "tornado outbreak" (outbreaks aren't naturally contained to a single day), and because this article points out single dates not date-ranges. However, it was by almost any measure the largest tornado outbreak on record, whether you count the 200 tornadoes on April 27 or the 343 in 4 days (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tornadoes/2011/13). Yes, tornadoes are naturally US-centric, and yes, I realize it sounds like I'm grasping at straws, and yes, maybe I'm biased because I study weather for a living, but it seems inconsistent to not include a world record disaster just because it occurred in the United States. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 13:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
noted already where they belong in United States article, EXCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I know this thread has not been active for a while, but I would like to point out that less significant tornadoes and outbreaks have been included in articles such as this. See April 26, 1991 May 3, 1999 February 5-6 2008, and arguably April 3-4 1974. The April 25-28 outbreak was larger, costlier, and deadlier than all of these. So would we advocate not listing any tornado related events that fall short of the Tri-State tornado or the Daulatpur-Saturia tornado? I added the latter to the 1989 article since the world's deadliest tornado is worth mentioning even if this outbreak is not. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. Secondly, 1991, 1999 and 1974 do not fall under the scope of recent years and the WP:RY criteria do not apply to them. Thridly, 2008 contains a mountain of material that does not belong in there, it is probably beyond help. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
So, out of curiosity, does that mean this event can be added in 2022? Also, the disaster guidelines are vague. Does this mean a disaster that only affects one country should not be added no matter how significant they are within a single country?TornadoLGS (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
This will never belong on this article, because they are a domestic event - the correct place is 2011 in the United States. RY criteria appear to apply to all Year articles edited live, ie. 2001-present.

Added 2011 link for page support...

The link supports Wiki's 2011 content and is the only outside link currently on this page. GW... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garywest1111 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The link you added does not seem appropriate for this article as it is centred on pop culture while the article is concerned with historically notable events. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Inclusion of Hurricane Irene

Should a blurb about Hurricane Irene be added to the article? The storm did $19 billion in damage in the United States, becoming the fifth costliest Atlantic hurricane on record. As such, it received coverage from four continents [5] [6] [7] [8] (WP:RY sets three as the standard). Note that this was previously discussed but that wasn't very decisive. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No. It's a US-specific event with no international implications. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
EXCLUDE-I am currious - one and half years after the event you seek to add it - you dont think we have already discussed this issue here on the talk page?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
also i might add you are loosing hope of ever persuading me and i bet just about every other editor by warring on the page with reverts--68.231.15.56 (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Exclude - it's even more obvious now than before that the event wasn't important at all outside the USA, and even inside, the consequences were quite limited. Please stop adding it. — Yerpo Eh? 07:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Exclude -Low causalities, not significant impact. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Exclude - per Yerpo. United States Man (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Neutral - Is there a specific policy that says events that only affect one country should not be on the list? Even so, I see many country-specific events such as:
  • January 11 – Flooding and mudslides in the Brazilian state of Rio de Janeiro kills 903.
  • September 10 – Zanzibar ferry sinking: The MV Spice Islander I, carrying at least 800 people, sinks off the coast of Zanzibar, killing 240 people
  • January 24 – 37 people are killed and more than 180 others wounded in a bombing at Domodedovo International Airport in Moscow, Russia
Also note that these events did not receive significant media coverage compared to that of Hurricane Irene. JamesA >talk 00:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
From WP:RY:
Disasters, assassinations, and other crimes

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

Firstly WP:OTHERSTUFF applies, just becuase other events are included does not mean that this event should also be, rather that those events be discussed for exclusion. Secondly, the death tolls in the Brazil and Zanzibar events is significantly greater than that of Irerne. The Moscow bombing is not only not a disaster as the others are (and therefore hardly comparable), but involved multiple nationalities therefore having more international notability. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
None of those events should be included. People of different nationalities being involved doesn't prove international notability. The perpetrators of the 2011 England riots were of many nationalities, but the event is excluded because it had no siginificant international effect (apart from some visitors postponing their trips to England until after the riots were stopped). Jim Michael (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Roberts Blossom

I'm not convinced he should be added to deaths here. He only had 8 articles and a small stub here before death. The requirement that he have 9 other-language Wikipedia articles probably doesn't apply this early, but the fact that there was little there before death possibly probably should apply. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Tucson shootings

While this may have been a US-centric event, why would this be excluded while something like the Columbine shooting is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.122.229 (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Please read the archives, this has been discussed thoroughly. — Yerpo Eh? 07:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Anne McCaffrey

Is she Irish-American or just Irish? She emegrated to Ireland 40 years before her death.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Bob Marcucci

Is this person significant? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely say no. There's nothing in his article that indicates any sort of international significance. -- irn (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

2011 Alexandria bombing

Why include? Not all bombings with Wikipedia articles should appear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Include it killed a substantial number of people, it was covered globally, we have numerous international Wikipedia articles about the same event, the article is in very good condition. Etc. Your second sentence is a statement with little consequence, a little desperation going on. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Walt Disney Animation Studios begin plan traditionally-animated films

In 2011, Walt Disney Animation Studios begin plan traditionally-animated films in the future:

  • Cold World (live-action/traditional animation) (February 2011)
  • The Library Museum (live-action/traditional animation) (March 2011)
  • Romeo & Juliet (traditional animation) (April 2011)
  • Summer in Paris (traditional animation) (May 2011)
  • Hercules vs. Tarzan (traditional animation) (June 2011)

Note: Walt Disney Animation Studios begin plan future traditionally-animated films in 2011, which was still in production on Wreck-it Ralph. The first two 2D-animated films to be co-produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios with DisneyToon Studios were The Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh: The Movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.247.95 (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This may be something for 2011 in the United States or 2011 in film but not this article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Gary Speed

In spite of the large number of foreign Wikipedia articles, I see no way that Gary Speed should replace Anne McCaffrey in the images. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Eclipses

See WT:YEARS#Eclipses for a matter relevant to this page. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Arab Spring

@Naddruf:. I'm not sure Arab Spring should be in the lead. It appears not to have had lasting effect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: It hasn't really had a lasting effect in creating a different type of government, but it suddenly removed many of the more stable leaders in the area, replacing them all at once. It also created a lot of civil wars known as the Arab Winter. In that way it is sort of like the Revolutions of 1830, which are mentioned in the lead of the 1830 page. I think more years should have information in the lead because it is hard to find the important things that happened when they are divided up into so many pieces.

There are too many broken links here. Anyone care to fix them? 2003 LN6 (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Italy crisis: Mario Monti appointed new PM-designate". BBC News. 2011-10-26. Retrieved 2011-10-30.
  2. ^ Fleming, Andrew (September 27, 2011). "Adbusters sparks Wall Street protest Vancouver-based activists behind street actions in the U.S". The Vancouver Courier. Retrieved September 30, 2011.
  3. ^ About "About Adbusters". The Media Foundation. Retrieved October 3, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  4. ^ William Yardley (2011-11-27). "The Branding of the Occupy Movement". New York Times. Retrieved 2011-12-09.
  5. ^ "Where now for the Occupy protesters?". Channel 4 News. 4 November 2011. Retrieved 15 November 2011.
  6. ^ Shenker, Jack; Gabbatt, Adam (25 October 2011). "Tahrir Square protesters send message of solidarity to Occupy Wall Street". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 15 November 2011.
  7. ^ Saba, Michael (September 17, 2011). "Twitter #occupywallstreet movement aims to mimic Iran". CNN tech. Retrieved September 17, 2011.
  8. ^ "Occupy Wall Street | September 17th". Adbusters.org. Retrieved October 6, 2011.
  9. ^ "احتجاجات بـ82 دولة للمطالبة بالعدالة". AlJazeera.net. Retrieved January 3, 2012.
  10. ^ Joanna Walters (8 October 2011). "Occupy America: protests against Wall Street and inequality hit 70 cities". The Guardian. London. Retrieved October 14, 2011.
  11. ^ Derek Thompson (Oct 15 2011). "Occupy the World: The '99 Percent' Movement Goes Global". The Atlantic. Retrieved October 15, 2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  12. ^ Shaila Dewan (October 11, 2011). "99 Percenters and 53 Percenters Face Off". The New York Times. Retrieved October 15, 2011.
  13. ^ Karla Adam (October 15, 2011). "Occupy Wall Street protests go global". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 8, 2011.
  14. ^ Karla Adam (October 16, 2011). "Occupy Wall Street protests continue worldwide". The Washington Post. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  15. ^ Joanna Walters in Seattle (8 October 2011). "Occupy America: protests against Wall Street and inequality hit 70 cities | World news | The Observer". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved October 13, 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011/Archive_5&oldid=1191600378"