Talk:2008/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Deaths images?

Would it be too early I (or someone else) was to put some free-use images in the deaths section? Moving the "2008 in other calendars" template in the "Major religious holidays" section below? Gran² 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well with no objections after 5 days I went ahead and added some. If anyone wants to change/add/remove any please do so. Gran² 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Pope's visit

I've removed the entry about the Pope's visit to the US as a violation of NPOV because his visits to other countries have not been given comparable attention. Perhaps there is, in fact, something unusual/notable about this visit to the US, but if this is the case, then it should probably be made clear in the entry itself. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added it because it is a significant event. This was the first visit by a Pope to the U.S. since 1999. This was also the first visit since the child abuse scandal. This event received widespread coverage throughout not only the U.S. but also the world as it was the lead story for the BBC. Not all of the Pope's visits deserve to be mentioned on this article granted, but the ones that receive major attention deserve to be mentioned (like Benedict XVI's visit to Turkey and Brazil). --Tocino 16:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it because it just says "pope visits country" - and on that basis you'd have to include every country he visits. However I think the first Veneration outside the Vatican (in Lebanon) is probably notable, because it's the first. Remove it if it's not big enough, I'm not a Catholic so I can't assess the importance of it. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Kentucky Derby

May 3 -Big Brown wins the 134th Kentucky Derby. Wikiworthy?

If it were up to me, the only sports results (if any) that would make it into the year articles would be those resulting from games between people/teams explicitly representing more than one nationality. But since Super Bowl, World Series, and even Masters results have crept into these articles, then...sure, why not add the Kentucky Derby too? Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted in an 2008 year in sport or american football or what ever if there is the article to be put it into. This article is about discussing 2008 events in general the ones that stand out and are important or big during the year which is known to more then one nationality should be included here. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Amnon Netzer

Any thoughts on the notability of Amnon Netzer and on the need to include his death in the main article? He seems to be a relatively obscure scholar who might belong in Deaths in 2008 rather than the main article. He had no article before his death, and his "article" now is just a stub (which read much like an obituary before I edited it) with scarcely more than an obituary as its "references." Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The google test suggests notability, especially since the name, as written, is a transliteration, so that alternate names are likely. I'd never heard of him, but the first few google hits seem reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Works for me --Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The notability is obvious as per guidelines. --Kaaveh (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Weeks

Why are the months in this page set up with weeks going from Monday to Sunday as opposed to Sunday to Saturday?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

From Week: "In the UK, Australasia and other English-speaking countries, Monday is always shown as the first day of the week, though, this may be because it is the first day of the business week." Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Pefect numbers removal

No offence, but I am removing the bit in the introduction about perfect numbers because it is trivial, arbitrary (e.g. to remove "200" from the front of "8" and yet claim it is some kind of special property about the year 2008), self-inconsistent (with June 28 being considered as two separate perfect numbers, but August 12 requiring arbitrary concatenation to form one single perfect number), not a worldwide view (12 August 2008 in International format is 12/8/08 not 8/12/08), and most importantly, wrong (e.g. August 1, 2028 is also 8128 by the same criteria). Open4D (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw your edit originally and had no problem with it, your rationale for removing it makes perfect sense. ~ mazca ^talk 16:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Free-use images of 2008 deaths

I made a project page, User:RandomOrca2/Free-use images of notable 2008 deaths, which contains images of deaths listed on the 2008 page that are free-use. It should probably help with image displays for deaths on this page. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing content that is not notable

There (still) seems to be far too much content on this page which does not meet the WP:Notability criteria. Some barely even qualifies as News.

I suggest, as a start, that the following be either removed or moved to a more appropriate page (if not there already): 1. Elections. There are innumerable entries of the sort "Election held in XXXX" and others in which there is nothing more added of any significance. Most, if not all, of these are already in Elections in 2008 or 2008 in politics. 2. Annual and/or national sporting events in which this year's results are no more significant than any other year. Most of these are, or should be, in either 2008 in sports or the appropriate "2008 in xxsport" if there is one. 3. Weather events and disasters which are not significant enough to have their own page and have no reference (e.g. "February 18 - Athens, Greece is paralysed by its worst snowstorms in more than 50 years.")

There is much more that should be removed but it really is time a start was made. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2008(UTC)

Given the complete lack of input so far I'll conclude that there are no objections and will go ahead and remove them (as time permits!). DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted. Please see previous years such as 2007, 2006, 2005, etc. This article follows the model that those articles have produced. Weather and sporting events plus elections are highly notable and deserve to be mentioned. --Tocino 06:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

on what basis? Annual sporting events should be included in the the relevant year in sport not here. Unreferenced weather related events do not deserve inclusion if there is no specific page for them otherwise they are just news, and Wikipedia in not news! I quote from WP:Not#News "News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." The entries I have removed fall into this category. If they are on other pages then they should they should also be removed/moved as appropriate. If they deserve a page of their own then that should be created and suitably referenced. Otherwise they do not deserve to be placed on this page. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My view is that events (sporting, weather, etc) may be considered for inclusion on the "YEAR" article if they have stable article pages of their own (i.e. the consensus is that they are notable events). The next stage in considering inclusion is to decide whether they are of international interest or importance (=include), rather than simply being of importance on a national or parochial level(=do not include). It would be a good idea if all year articles conformed to the same guidelines for event inclusion, as editors are always likely to look at previous years for an idea of what may or may not be included. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have any tabloid stuff on this page. 2008 is a very popular article as it basically serves as an index for all of the years events (this includes political, social, sporting, weather, and so on related events). --Tocino 19:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above there is a page for sports and 2(!) for elections. What is the point of having separate pages if they included here? They could/should be included in the year for the country concerned but unless they have a page of their own then they cannot be fulfilling the criteria for WP:Notability for inclusion on a general page such as this one. The same for any weather event or "terrorist" activity. If there is no page for the specific event then it can hardly be notable! If anyone feels they ARE notable then a page should be created. Until then they are just news (and some barely even qualify as that). This year or any year. Just because no-one has bothered to apply wikipedia policy to pages for previous years does not justify ignoring it for this year. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Derby on this. This article has far too much non-notable info that should be moved to sub-articles. If other year articles have this info it only goes to show that those articles also had a problem with notability issues. This article has tons of sub-articles and we need to use them and be particularly ruthless about what exactly can be on this page. Wrad (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Death of Bobby Murcer

Bobby Murcer, former New York Yankee has recently died at age 62. I find that death to be notable and I think it should be added. I'd add it myself, but the article is locked. Starbucks95905 (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the current, most commonly followed, inclusion criteria for this page is that the person must have at least two articles from a different language Wikipedia (although this could be subject to change, see above). Murcer, I'm afraid, does not have any other language articles, at this time. Gran² 17:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The page is temporarily on full protection due to "edit warring." See the log for details. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 in sports is currently unlocked. hint hint. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

American Baseball, basketball and football players are unlikely to be mentioned outside the US unless they are/were all-time record-holders so would not come under the "internationally notable" criteria. They could go in 2008 in Sports but 2008 in the United States would be better. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

By whose authority do we now have a guideline that you need nine non-English Wikipedia articles to include someone in the deaths list? This is a rather high and arbitrary guideline. PatGallacher (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No authority, just a consensus as per WP:CON. This is pretty much the way Wikipeia works, (although in this case a bit more discussion on death might have been needed) FFMG (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me the discussion where this consensus was arrived at? PatGallacher (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

On this very page, under proposal - 3 continent rule. Scroll up a little and it's there. It was done to cut down the list of deaths - we can't include everybody - and it was agreed that 10 wikipedia articles (including the English one) makes someone fairly important, and it's a nice round number to remember. If you don't agree, please suggest some other number, or method. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bombings and other terrorist activities

Can anyone suggest a criteria for inclusion of such events on this page? At present there seem to be too many which are more like news than historically notable events. Criteria may have to depend on the country concerned as a one-off attack in one country would be more notable than a similar size attack in another country which may be only one a dozen such attacks in the year. It may even be that only the largest one/few in each country be considered notable after the end of the year and all others removed at that time. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved a lot into 2008 in politics - It was the nearest I could find in the absence of 2008 in terrorism or 2008 in war - also didn't want to get involved in arguments about what's terrorism and what's war. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert

Is he really internationally notable? He may be unquestionably notable in the US but this page is NOT 2008 in the United States (which does not even have a Deaths section, but obviously should!). Clearly some editors have trouble with the concepts of both "international" and "notable". At present the consensus for inclusion on this page is based on Talk:2008#Deaths and Talk:2008#Proposal = 3 continent rule so unless someone can come up with better criteria only those that meet it should be included. Does Tim Russert meet this criteria or not? DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, considering the vast amount of media coverage it got, some of which was international (though nothing compared to the orgy of coverage that it apparently received in the US). --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's got 9 articles and easily made news in three continents so I'm willing to let it slide. Wrad (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to get into an edit war over a dead man, but this is clearly because he was American that he has his place here, why else would a news anchor be in the 2008 article?

I bet if a French or Chinese or even British newsreader died many would be up in arms if his name was added here.

What vast coverage did Tim get outside the US? What did he do in his life that was so spectacular? What did he do outside the US that affected the rest of the world? I certainly didn't read anything about it. Do you have any, (non US/UK), references?

The 8 articles other articles he has/had are nothing more than stubs.

Like I said, I am not going to argue over a dead person, but the double standards applied here sometimes gets a bit much FFMG (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC).

As for New Zealand, there was a small obituary on the weekly page of our largest daily newspaper and nothing on Television New Zealand (that I know of) or on their website. This contrasts with the coverage of most actors and other notables such as Bobby Fisher, Bo Diddley, Michael DeBaukey, Randy Pausch and Yves St Laurent. A potential problem with the "9 languages rule" is to know whether it is a genuine news article or merely a parroted translation of an English article. In this case a test might be whether Meet the Press was screened in the country concerned. Establishing that would be somewhat impractical so, as he meets the current criteria, I believe he should be included (for the present). DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

For me, Russert's death is the American equivalent of Mark Speight's death, here in the UK. He was a fairly well known TV presenter, who'd presented a show for a long time. His death would certainly be classified as unexpected, if you said to someone this time last year, that a year later he would be dead. But yet, Speight has only a few FL articles and is certainly not internationally notable. Is there a huge difference between the two? Granted, Meet the Press (although I don't think I've ever seen it be screened here) is more notable than SMart. However, I don't think this is something we need to argue over. Gran² 07:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

5.4 eathquake also notable?

I see that a 5.4 earthquake, with no real damage, death or injuries, makes it to the 2008 article. I would remove it but I suspect it will be reverted. FFMG (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Support removal. If there weren't even injuries, let alone deaths, it really doesn't seem very notable. Gran² 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Support removal, even though I was about 10 miles from the epicenter. I don't see it as internationally notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Was it felt on three continents?  Frank  |  talk  18:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been in a five pointer and it didn't do squat. Hardly newsworthy. Wrad (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why

Why were Bernie Mac and the Indian communist's pictures taken off??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeThinker889 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

This page is (supposedly) for internationally and historically significant events. The nomination of an African-American for the President of one country is only of international significance if it the first time this has happened and can be repeated in other countries. Otherwise it is only of significance in that country. Barack Obama's nomination has received enormous coverage in the media, but this page, indeed all of Wikipedia, is not a record of news reports. Should Obama be elected President the question of the significance of that event for inclusion would need to be reviewed but if the significance is based on racial/ethnic grounds, and if that is sufficient, or on other grounds, if any, would need careful consideration. At present I feel that the inclusion of Obama's nomination does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion on this page. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

by your own definition of what this page is supposed be for, you have validated barack obama's nomination. this is historically "significant". do we not make headlines out of the first in other countries..yes. When nelson mandela won office in south africa, was it not noted..when women are doing things noted as "firsts" in other countriesas well as america, do they not receive press coverage of it..yes..this has historical significance because of his ethnicity yes, but at the same time we would post the same thing if it was done by ANYONE else. let it be bill richardson hillary clinton, hell elton john. i would make a note of it. it has to due with giving credit where it is due. i would be behind any of the first that are posted for any other country as well. it doesnt matter to me about race however it does have to do with firsts.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all Nelson Mandela was mentioned when he became president, not when he became leader of the ANC.

Secondly Obama is not the first black leader of a political party, (in the world OR in the US).

Thirdly Obama is not the first black person to run for president, (in the world OR in the US).

So if/when he becomes president we might want to mention it, but until then it is hardly notable for 99% of us who are not in the States. Otherwise we will have to mention every new leaders of every political parties. FFMG (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

first of all barack IS the first nominated by a mahor political party...god if you actually looked at history you would know this. second i never said he was the leader of any political party in the world or the u.s.. get your facts right. because it is history and i will continue to add it in because it is notable...if he doesn't in the presidency, it will still be noted that he would be the first in the u.s so why is everyone whining. if he wins, i will personally take it down. if he doesn't what will happen? i will still fight you guys tooth and nail to leave it there. i would have done the same for Pratibha Patil, the first woman in india to become president. i would have done the same for anyone.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As I am not an American I don't care much for the presidential nominations, If I was I would read 2008 in the United States.

In any case, I looked at US history and I saw 3 persons of colour who ran for the office of president of the United States, one of them was even a woman and she even ran in 50 states.

I am not sure what facts I am supposed to get right, I said it, and I pointed out that it was not notable as he was not the first one, (in the world or the US). Remember that this is supposed to be an international article, so to be notable he should be the first in the world.

As I am not American I don't know what you think is a 'Major' party or why this should be mentioned here.

I am also not sure why you are threatening us here, we will reach a consensus and, as it has been proven many time in Wikipedia, the entry will probably stay. But your threats don't mean much otherwise.

At best he is the first black democratic presidential nominee, and I frankly don't see why this should be mentioned on a supposedly international article. FFMG (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that Barack Obama is being recognized in Europe too, because it will affect the world on many highly important decisions including the War on Terrorism. Orion11M87 (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The president of the US will make a difference in the War on Terrorism, the Republican/Democrat nominee, (whatever colour he/she is), will not.

As I said, it is not a world first by any stretch of the imagination, (and not even a US first at that). FFMG (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Orion11M87 Obama is notable in Europe and the Democrats choice is notable in Europe as i am concerned and will affect world affairs if he is president however i see where FFMG is coming from as Obama doesnt yet affect the world stage 'if' he becomes president, i say relegate the Obama bit to the 2008 in U.S till Obama acutually becomes President which is far notable then a american polictical party that has chosen a canidate. As for EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere if our fellow wikipedians have chosen not to include something coz of the notablity then let it go, it is not the end of the world. Pro66 (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in anyway saying its the end of the world im simply saying it is a notable thing that should be recognized..and as far as 3 people of color running..sure they may have run but did they get a major party's nomination..the answer to that of course is no. therefore it should be placed within the events of august...thats it...its not the end of the world it just shows lack of people recognizing significant events that occur. why do we include bombings that occur...most dont affect the world stage..but this affects the world stage and it should be placed here...and if not then it shows this and any other page like it to be insignificant because i can point to many things on any random page as not being noteworthy but people fight for it to remain and thats all that i am trying to do as well...im not even afr-amer. as i think my name implies..and all i was wanting to bestow credit to the person, not make it a racial/cultural/socioeconomic issue.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A person that gets chosen to be a canidate doesnt affect the world stage, an election does, a bombing does but not some guy that gets to run for a party in a country election (which basically happens lot of times every year). If Obama gets elected president then that would be notable as he would be able to affect the world stage. A bombing (depending on the scale of the bombing) would affect the world stage as it would change the nation attitude or what not therefore would get a meantion on this article. As an editor typed earlier, the article 2008 in the United States is the best place for it as that is the most relevant place to put it not here as Obama is not the first black guy to be running for president in the world. If he was the first black person trying to become a leader of any nation then it would get a meantion but no he is not the first therefore he gets no mention. Pro66 (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

realizing that youre right is something that most people cant handle and this is wasting my time..talking to ignorance is pointless. most of you are wrong. dead wrong. ignorance is bliss --EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What are you right about and where are we wrong?

The leader of the Democrats does not affect world news, the president of the US does, so that alone is a good enough reason why his nomination should not be on this page.

The fact that he is black is also not a first, it is not a first in the world and he is not the first in the US, that that is also not news worthy and therefore should not be here.

So it should be in the US as he is the first Black presidential nominee for the Democrats, but apart from that I am not sure why it is mentioned here. FFMG (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama is half African American & half Caucasian American. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Erik Neilson

Would it be alright to add him to the death section? He was Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, 1984-86; but I'm not sure how many related articles he's got. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

None, under that spelling, actually. Erik Nielsen only has 2 foreign language articles mentioned in his article, although it's possible there are others not yet linked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I did add him to 2008 in politics, which he qualifies for. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mona Lisa

"However, on January 14, 2008, German academics of Heidelberg University made public a finding that corroborates the traditional identification: dated notes scribbled into the margins of a book by its owner on October 1503 established Lisa de Giocondo as the model for the painting.[36]" For the Mona Lisa!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa

That's pretty important. It was a pretty big mystery, and it's sorta the most famous and recognizable paintings out there. Is adding that allowed? I'm not going to, I'd probably mess the page up. What do you guys think?
Does George Carlin's death count too? As an important 2008 event? He made that 7 dirty words list, mann. Epic. (LadyCakeage (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

NIU shooting image

The image is notable because it is a free image that documents the local, national, and international reaction in the immediate aftermath of a school shooting that was in the forefront of international events and was the top national event for much of the remainder of the month of February in the year 2008, and continues to be a big issue with many news articles written about it right up to today. The image cannot be replaced...the snow is no longer there, the memorial has been taken down, and the reaction to this event at the time cannot be replaced. As for the event itself, it has resulted in numerous changes around the globe to emergency management preparation, a heightened debate in gun politics (both within the U.S. and other countries criticizing the U.S.), a closer analysis at psychiatric problems in youth, and a greater concern over the safety at educational institutions, all of which are important international topics in the year 2008. Abog (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the image is not very clear, (in the article), and the event is not really that internationally notable in the first place. Sadly this is not a first, in the world or in the US. FFMG (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FFMG, this is not the first time for US, and has not of any significance on the world level. The years articles are not for listing news. I am agreeing on the removal of the entry itself, and if kept, it must be rewritten to match Wikipedia standards. — Orion11M87 (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is internationally notable as I have already demonstrated with international sources and the shooting's impact in a number of topics of global importance. And "first time" does not necessarily equal notable...severity and global impact does. There are plenty of shootings that just come and go. But only a few spark global debate over guns, school safety and mental health that continues, only a few push changes in emergency management and preparation, only a few spark legislation proposals. This shooting, due to its severity, impact, and cirucmstances, was one of those few. It certainly was the most prolific of the year, thus far. If you deny this, you are simply being ignorant. I guess it's harder to debate the image issue, since I'm not really sure which images qualify for inclusion here and which don't. So, I guess I'll let that slide. But I will fight to the end about the inclusion of the text, espeically as it is supported by international news sources that discuss the global impact of the shooting. Abog (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then keep the entry, but it must be rewritten to professional quality on Wikipedia standards. The entry is horribly written (it is written as story, rather it should be written as event). — Orion11M87 (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There might have been some international sources, but mainly because media find the shooting, (and abundance of reporting material), of 5 more people in the US easy easy to make headlines out of.

That particular shooting did not 'spark any legislation proposal', (not in my neck of the woods anyway), neither did it start any gun debate either or even any mental health debate. I suspect you are comparing the US response with the rest of the worlds.

You can try and call us ignorant but the fact remains that the impact was not as international as you might think. Note that I am not saying that it is was not reported by some media, I am just saying that 6 dead in a school in the US did not cause the ripples around the world as you try to imply.

A very small indicator of the impact is the fact that the article, (Northern Illinois University shooting), only has 5 Wikipedia articles, (and not the biggest ones either).

And, as I have said before, no need to 'fight to the end', a consensus is reached and that's all. Your passion on the mater does not matter. FFMG (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly FFMG, well said. I am removing the entry. — Orion11M87 (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It very well is internationally notable. Maybe try reading the sources I have provided, one of which discusses the impact of the shooting worldwide in issues relating to mental health, school safety, and so forth, 2 months after it happened. Just because ripples haven't been felt in your "neck of the woods" doesn't mean that it didn't create ripples in other parts of the world, which it very well has. I'm sorry, but if people in Australia are still talking about something that happened in the United States two months later, it's notable. I have actually backed up my belief on whether the incident is notable with actual sources, while you have failed to provide documentation of the event not being notable. Also, if the event wasn't notable, it wouldn't have a Wikipedia article about it--and a "good article" to boot. So, please stop removing notable, well-cited entries of international significance from this article. Thank you. Abog (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying does not make sense, how can I prove that something was not in the news? Shall I quote all the newspaper that _don't_ mention this event? In any case, the one source you gave is not about this particular shooting, but about shootings in the US, (to emphasize the fact that this is not a notable event).

Also Wikipedia has many articles, and many good articles to boot. It does not mean that they can all be listed here. Only 5 other languages translated the MU article, almost all the events listed in the 2008 had a much wider impact on Wikipedia.

As I said, the event was mentioned, but it did not cause gun law reforms, mental health debates and so on. All that was mentioned was more along the lines, "yet another shooting in the US, great pictures inside".

The fact remains that on the 2008 page we carefully try to only list 'exceptional' international events.

The NU Shooting, as terrible as it was, was not a first in the US and it was not international news, (the Australian[1] article that you keep referring to talks about shootings in US schools in general not about the NU shootings).

This is why the article is not notable here. FFMG (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost all events listed in 2008 had a much wider impact on Wikipedia? An oil pipeline exploding in Nigeria does not really affect the rest of the world neither does an election in a mediocre country that has little clout in the global scene and so forth. And the NIU shooting did create quite a stir, including movements to both permit students to carry guns on campus as well as legislation to restrict guns in the United States. It also has created a stir in the mental health community, with criticisms in the treatement (or lack therof) of people who are mentally ill. And it has caused many places to conduct emergency drills and change the way they respond to crises in ways they wouldn't if this shooting did not occur. If you want articles on this, I can find them for you. In addition, the NIU shooting was specifically focused on in the article in the Australian, along with the Virginia Tech shooting (the two most prolific university shootings in the United States), and jointly were the basis for the writing of that article, which focused primarily on universities and shootings, not high schools. Also, do not forget the BBC article, which was just one of many international articles about the shooting. I recall in the immediate aftermath that the shooting was the front page story in nearly every newspaper around the world...the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Australia, Japan, and so forth. It wasn't just another shooting relegated to page 8 (which many U.S. shootings are)...it was big. It was big enough to warrant nearly every university across the globe expressing sympathy towards the school, as well as a phone call from President Bush to the university president (most U.S. shootings don't get this reaction). I know there are more countries as well...I'm just simply not as familiar with accessing archived international news sources, but I'm sure if you look, there's stuff out there. Not to mention that this shooting impacted a majority of people in Northern Illinois in a major way, a region which contains about 10 million people. There are several events listed here that were local in their impacts, but notable nonetheless. This is one of them. Sure, it may have only made major waves in the U.S. and some of the British Empire countries, but they were big waves that affected millions of people. And you can't deny that. I really think continually removing this entry is very foolish and disruptive. I already compromised by letting the image be removed. The entry has been listed on this page ever since it happened, and all of a sudden it's an issue? Abog (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 Ijegun pipeline explosion, between 39 and 100 people died and oil supply was disrupted in Africa, (a bit more than 6, but I guess this entry could also be removed as it is also not a first).

"...election in a mediocre country...", I am not even going to entertain that comment, sorry if you don't think that election results that affects the day to day life of whole regions, is more important that a usual gun battle in a US school.

Made headlines ...in nearly every newspaper around the world, really?, a very quick search of headlines does not seem to agree with your statement.

I could not find such headlines in the The Guardian on the 14th, the 15th or even later. I could not find it on the BBC either, on the 14th or the 15th. And that's just the UK, (is it a mediocre country or is it good enough?).

I also don't know what movements you are talking about, or what stir in the mental health community, once again I fear that you are mistaking reactions in your country with the rest of the world.

In fact, looking at your comments, you truly believe that Bush calling after a university shooting is somewhat more important than "...election in a mediocre country...". Or that Millions of people were affected, (yes, I am denying that and I doubt you can reference such a claim).

For the record, the British Empire does not exits anymore. FFMG (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, the oil supply was disrupted in Africa? Well, the higher education system in North America was shaken by this event, as evidenced by the article written 2 months later in the Australian. As for the Guardian and BBC, perhaps you should do a bit more digging and click on "International News". OK, maybe it didn't make the front page (I'm sure Nigeria's oil pipeline explosion didn't either), but it is clearly there...actually listed twice in the Guardian on Feb. 15 in two separate stories. When I initially said front page, I meant the front page of those news media's websites, which I clearly remember. As for the BBC article written Feb. 15...I actually used it as a reference, so it shouldn't be hard to find. As for elections in countries around the world, they appear to be numerous and often really do not change things in countries that much. Sure, the faces may change, but the policies are often similar. For another example of an event that is probably not notable that is listed here...how about a plane crash into a house in the U.K. that killed two people? So, you're going to leave that in (something that just affected the person flying the plane and the people in the house and their families) and remove an event that created big ripples in the areas of higher education, gun politics, emergency management, mental health, and affected almost every person in the 12 million+ state of Illinois in a big way? And yes, millions of people were affected. If you lived in the Chicago metropolitan area and saw the affect this event has had on people throughout the region (almost all of which have some sort of connection to that university), you would understand. It is not often that professional sports teams display tributes to tragedies like this, and every Chicago sports team had some sort of tribute. It is not often that nearly every college and university in the United States calls or writes a single university to express its condolonces. It is not often that a presidential candidate stops in the middle of heated primary election campaign to be there for the university. I could go on. As for the British Empire, I am referring to countries that are located in areas that were once part of it. Abog (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The education system was shaken by this event. Really? Even if it was, (and I doubt it really was), it was the US education system, that does not make it an international event.

"...gun politics, emergency management, mental health...", again you are talking about the US, not the rest of world. And in any case I think you are exaggerating, (but I will be happy to read references about changes in gun politics, emergency management and mental health as a direct response to the MIU shooting.

Why would I do any digging? You said it "...aftermath that the shooting was the front page story in nearly every newspaper around the world..." and I clearly showed to you that it was not true. Feel free to find the BBC article if you think it is not hard to locate, but it was not an headline article, (as you claimed).

You are welcome to remove entries as we did. If a consensus is reached your edit will remain or they will be reverted. Start a new section, (like this one).

For the record, Africa is a continent, the US is one country. This is why we have the 2008 article and the 2008 in the United States article.

And, we call it the Commonwealth, and I very much doubt that it had the effect you claim, (unless you have references that I would be happy to look at?). FFMG (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It would really help if you would stop being ignorant. First of all, it's NIU, not MIU or MU. Second of all, I already found the BBC article. It was used as a reference. Maybe if you would stop deleting the entry, you could click on the reference and go right to it. Yes, it was also a headline article. In the Guardian, it was a headline article as well. Like I said, it was under the international news section in two places. How many times do I have to repeat myself for you to understand? Yes, the education system was shaken by this event...did you even read the article in the Australian? Because that's clearly what it was about. Why the hell would the Australian write a topic about the two primary U.S. university shootings (VA Tech and NIU) affecting the education system, if it wasn't important to the Australian people? I am not exaggerating on the event affecting emergency management and gun politics. A bill was introduced to ban certain types of firearms in direct response to the event. A group called "Students for Concealed Carry on Campus" was formed in direct response to the Virginia Tech shooting and accelerated with the NIU shooting. Local schools are now conducting drills because of this shooting and changing the way in which they react to things and also focusing more on preparing for shootings instead of fires or tornadoes. This isn't just a local event...and this is demonstrated by it appearing in all these national and international media sources. I don't know why I have to provide more references...I have already provided an adequate amount. All these other entries don't need 50 references from every country in the globe, so why should this one? Please stop removing notable, well-sourced entries. It really makes Wikipedia look foolish. Abog (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Some more sources for you to demonstrate my points. These are just examples, of which there are many more:

Effect on emergency management: http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/27131/

Effect on gun politics: http://www.abajournal.com/news/niu_shooting_fuels_gun_control_debate/

Effect on higher education: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/02/15/niu

Effect on mental health: http://dailyherald.com/story/?id=229661&src=5 Abog (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all please try and remain civil, insulting me or others will not help.

Secondly the Australian article is about changes of policies IN THE US, (and it is about shootings in the US in general, not the NU shooting in particular)

Thirdly the BBC article and the Guardian articles were not headline as you claimed. 'Under the international' section does not mean that it is a headline.

All the links the gave clearly indicate that it is a domestic event, IN THE US

More importantly, it is not a first in the US and it did not affect the rest of the world so it is not notable here. FFMG (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am getting really tired of the double standard applied against the United States on Wikipedia. So, basically if some event happens in another country, we can put it on here, regardless of whether it affects the rest of the world. But by golly, if something happens in the U.S., it better affect the entire world, or it cannot be included. You also have to keep in mind that the United States has a larger share of the world population than most countries. So when something impacts the United States in a large manner...it's impacting 1/20 of the world's population, whereas when something happens in a smaller country, it's only impacting about 1/100 of the world's population. About 70% of the entries in this article are events that really only impacted the countries in which they happened. Only a few really affected multiple countries in a signifcant way. Just scroll through and you will see this. A plane flies into a house in UK doesn't affect the rest of the world, an earthquake in Japan doesn't really affect the rest of the world, another routine bombing in Israel doesn't really affect the rest of the world, and so forth. So unless you want me to remove every entry on here that does not affect the rest of the world or has no sources, please realize that this shooting was a highly notable world event that happened to take place in the United States in the year 2008, just as the rest of these events listed here were notable events that occurred in their respective countries in the year 2008. As for first, Columbine and Virginia Tech weren't the first U.S. shootings either. But they were notable, just like this one. And the links I have provided demonstrate how much this event impacted so many different fields of global importance. You really think people at other institutions across the globe aren't making the same changes as a result of this shooting? Also keep in mind that almost every institution of higher education contains a considerable amount of international students, so when every institution in the United States is doing things differently as a result of this shooting, it really is impacting a significant share of people from other countries around the world. In addition, I'm sorry if I'm bad at finding international news sources. If I was better at it, I'm sure I could find tons of stuff relating to this shooting from international sources, as it appears BBC and the Australian aren't good enough for you. Abog (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The shooting was non-notable. You are greatly exaggerating it; It did not change any laws; Calling it in news does not make it notable; Notable also means on the magnitude of the event which isn't present here; You are personally affected by it due to the locality of it; Calling on international students in US Universities does not make any difference on notability; Also number of population of a country does not effect notability; Finding international sources does not make the event notable or of magnitude (news site report almost everything); Years articles are not for news; An earthquake is of a huge magnitude which kills, displaces thousands and millions of people and effects the economy on a world scale such as of a country Japan; Bombing in Israel are not of routine and do greatly effect the world relations on multiple levels and sometimes even cause a start of war; Terrorism events effect the world on highly important diplomatic relations (that's why there is War on Terrorism); Even if the shooting doesn't effect the world it can still be added, but the magnitude of this shooting does not equate to the notability on to international level; While I do absolutely respect your opinions on adding the entry and improving the article, your argument has been seem to be repeating. — Orion11M87 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes the shooting did initiate new laws, such as this. I have not heard any sound arguments on why this is not notable from either of you. All I hear is news does not make it notable. Then what does? What other way is there to judge? Because, when I look at Wikipedia's policies on notability, having sufficient sources from a diverse selection of reliable third party sources is what makes something notable. And this event has just that. I've already proven how this event has made significant waves in every field from law enforcement to emergency response to higher education to gun politics. What more do you want? I feel that no matter how hard I try, both of you have become very close-minded and have refused to even consider the possibility that this is a notable event in the year 2008. And bombings in Israel are fairly routine...where have you been for the past 10 years? And earthquakes only affect the persons in the country it strikes. Sure, it may have been felt in other places, but it really only affected the people in Japan. You think the 25,000 students, 10,000 faculty, 100,000 people in DeKalb County, and countless other families and friends weren't traumatized by this event? Because they certainly were. You think it's not going to affect the economy in the cost of closing the school down for a week and having to build a new building. It is no different than Japan dealing with an earthquake. This event has created just as much turmoil that the people in a state of 12 million and that educational institutions across the nation and globe have had to deal with. And I don't think my argument has been repeating...I think I have built upon it each time, adding more sources and more information. However, I have noticed that you two have become increasingly close-minded and refusing to accept that this is a notable event and have failed to give sound arguments on why this event is not notable compared to almost everything else listed here. Boulders falling off cliffs in Egypt and a minor plane crash in Britain? OK...people died, but did it really affect anyone else? Are we serious? But an event that actually changed laws, spurred changes to emergency plans, and changed the way educational institutions handle things cannot be listed? Seriously? Abog (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are greatly exaggerating it. It did not change any laws, a change in a campus law is not notable. Your arguments have been repeating. The entry is non-notable. The consensus has reached, and add the entry in 2008 in the United States. I am not going to repeat explanations on notability and magnitude as you are (repeating explanations just to add entry). — Orion11M87 (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not greatly exaggerating it. It did change laws...it changed a state law. Quit being ignorant and please stop failing to see reality. And no, a consensus has not been reached. You two do not own this article. I am re-adding it with an additional international source which clearly mentions the event's impact on society and the international gun control debate which accelerated as a result of this incident. Abog (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please try to be civil; A change in a state law does not constitute notability. And you are personally affected by it due to the locality of it. — Orion11M87 (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It changed a state law, so it is a domestic event, not an international one.

The Australian article you keep using is about shootings in the US in general, meaning that 1) it is not a first, 2) the article is not about that shooting. Even the introduction of that Article only mentions last years shooting.

It also did not impact society and international gun control debate, please stop adding an international twist to this event. There was no 'international gun control debate'.

By your own admissions all it changed was maybe a state law, (I don't even know what law), the impact was not even National. FFMG (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a different standard of inclusion is being applied to this particular event, for some odd reason. Just looking over the page there are quite a few events that are as described, with little international impact. I agree it does seem kind of foolish to not list such an obviously notable event as a shooting resulting in deaths on a major U.S. college campus in this article.--IvoShandor (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that some entries should be removed, we only started cleaning up this article a couple of months ago, (see earlier discussions), feel free to remove those entries you feel are not notable as you come across them.

And I also agree with you that this particular shooting was a very notable event in Illinois but I am not sure it is an internationally notable event. In fact the impact of the event was mostly at a state level and not even at a national level.

This shooting was not a first in the world or in the US, it was not the deadliest either, this is why we don't list every single earthquakes, cyclones or bomb blasts in Iraq. FFMG (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing the LHC inaguration date?

As you might have heard, the LHC has suffered a short-circuit in one of the magnets, leaking liquid helium and losing it's superconductive functionality. The "inaguration date" has been delayed undefinitely, but it would mostly start being operational again in 3 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.50.97.246 (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The LHC inauguration day is different from the beam collision day. While the first collisions are delayed, it will probably be inaugurated on the same date (there are no reports on the delay of inauguration). Likewise even before the problem, the inauguration date was October 21st and the beam collision date was October 26th. — Orion11M87 (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am investigating if the LHC inauguration day has indeed changed, although no official word has been made. — Orion11M87 (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Date confirmed, it is indeed October 21, 2008, while the LHC will start in spring 2009. — Orion11M87 (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nigeria's militant group began ceasefire

Is it notable enough? Seems more like news. — Orion11M87 (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Stuff that shouldn't be in this article

Here's a list of things I believe should not be in the main 2008 article.

1. No sporting events unless they are A)international events that don't happen every year (i. e. the Olympics or the World Cup) or B) have some sort of significance that makes them comparable to A (Maybe a long-standing world-record is broken or something).
2. No elections unless they involve some sort of serious resistance movement (Mugabe-Zimbabwe-ish), affect the world as a whole (US Presidential election, UN secretary General), or are the first elections to be held ever or in several decades in that country.
3. No weather events unless they are especially severe, affecting several countries (or one large one such as China, India, or the US) in a significant way, including high death tolls. 4 and 5-point earthquakes do not belong. Those things don't do much more than shake your furniture. The fact that a similar weather event hasn't happened in decades may not qualify it if it did not cause any serious damage.
4. No economic events unless they effect a significant portion of the world. The US Stock Market on it's own shouldn't be enough, it needs to be more international. There are other places to read about the US economy.
5. We should not list any more than 25 deaths per year, give or take. Limit it to the 25 most notable and internationally-significant deaths and leave the rest to Deaths in 2008. We can't list everybody.

The burden of proof regarding whether something belongs lies with the person who added it. Wrad (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all sport but left elections in, on the grounds that sport is trivial (some guys kicked a ball better than some other guys) but left elections in because they affect whole countries and make things different, and in some cases have consequences beyond the country they happen in. However 2008 in politics could fit in the smaller, regular ones if they get removed from here. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Some politicians snookered more people than the other guy... Unless it can be shown that the election significantly changed the country in some way or is important in some way I can't fathom now, it shouldn't be here, in my opinion. Thanks for your edits, though. I think they are an important first step. Wrad (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't own the article, or feel precious about my edits (I have a blog for that), so please improve on them, or even put stuff back (as you did with the oil price entry). The article is currently at 77k and we're not even at the summer holidays yet, so more stuff can be pruned easily. As for elections: I left in the Iowa caucus (but does it need to stay? probably not)and super tuesday (same), and all national elections. The only ones that should definitely stay are America's presidential selection (worldwide consequences, whoever wins) and Zimbabwe (caused regional disturbance). I see that 2008 in Zimbabwe is a redlink, so I might fill that one in. After that thing in my sandbox gets finished... Totnesmartin (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would remove all elections but those two. Wrad (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What is with this obsession of some to delete, delete and delete? This has already been discussed. Please see previous years such as 2007, 2006, 2005, and so on for a model of what this article should look like. Elections, sporting and weather events are highly notable and they all belong here. --Tocino 04:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What is so great about those articles that makes them a model for this one to follow. They don't even have citations. They are just a huge mess. This article needs to be much better, and it all starts with deleting stuff that doesn't belong. Wrad (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to the editors,
Where are all those new rules discussed?
Who asked for any kind of pruning to take place?
I am don't disagree with the need to remove certain items but I disagree with the way your rules are given here, (Why would the US have preference over other countries? Why keep a caucus, a fairly domestic event? Why 25 death and not 30 or 100?)
This really needs to be discussed here before mass deleting everything. FFMG (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's the wikiproject at the top pf this page, which you're free to join if you want to. Meanwhile Wikipedia's page on article size says that some browsers and devices struggle to download long articles. Many things in the article could easily go into subarticles such as 2008 in politics), which are listed in the box at the top of the article. It's just one more click away. 2008, despite the name, isn't for everything that happened in 2008, just the biggest things. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry are you replying to me? My questions were not really about the article size and your edits were also not about article size. You deleted items you felt were not relevant.

I do agree that a lot of stuff need to be removed, but I still cannot see where there was a discussion on what can or cannot be included. I think you will agree that been a member of a wikiproject is not enough to decide what is 'the biggest things' or not. FFMG (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the rules are being discussed right here. I said right at the beginning that they are what "I believe" should be removed. Apparently Totnes agreed and took them out. Many other editors have expressed similar feelings and it's time for a change around here. Wrad (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry the rules are not been discussed here. Entries have been removed without following any rules, (I cannot see why some entries were deleted while other are left).

It would have been better to first discuss the rules and then remove entries rather than randomly choosing what someone felt was important or not, (and then for some reason mentioning the wikiproject as an authority). FFMG (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The rules are decided by discussion. We discussed and then removed. Can we talk more specifically about what should and shouldn't be in the article and less about how mad we are that someone didn't "do it the right way"? Please? Let's move on to the meat of this discussion. What is wrong with the things I outlined at the beginning of this section? A lot of editors are complaining that this article has way too much irrelevant information in it and this problem needs to be discussed. So let's do it. Wrad (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"A lot of editors are complaining that this article has way too much irrelevant information"... a lot of editors as in you and DerbyCountyinNZ? --Tocino 23:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Open your eyes, man! How about the editor who removed them in the first place, Totnesmartin? How about all the editors further up on this talk page who repeatedly point out that this page is out of control? Wrad (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The rules are decided by discussion, where is that discussion? All I see is a list of rules created by you followed by a mass deletion, (that don't even seem to follow your rules).

Looking at the revised list of June/July I wonder why some items were removed while others left alone? What rules were followed for those 2 months?

And at the end of the day, we should have come to a consensus before blindly deleting item someone felt did not belong here.

But moving all that aside, I think we should come up with a sound set of rules so that next time something is added I can edit/remove it without a shadow of a doubt. You must agree that your rules are somewhat vague.

Tocino, I have not reverted any edits because I also believe the article is too big, but I also agree with you that people making major changes to an article without even trying to reach a consensus, (and then demanding that the page be left alone), is just as bad. FFMG (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If my rules are somewhat vague, there is no way we are going to be able to fix them unless we get together and specifically address the issue. So far, five people have made major edits to cut the article in the past few days. Only one person, Tocino, has reverted them back. That is what we call OWNing the article against a consensus to change it. The answer here is to realize that people are very unsatisfied with the status quo and to sit with them and work out a compromise. What do you think this article should and shouldn't have, specifically? Where do you draw the line. I really don't see any clear lines being drawn here at all. Wrad (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would have preferred to discuss it first and then delete, rather than the way it was done. 'Forgetting' castro, or not knowing the 'Greek Orthodox Church' clearly indicate how POV this process can be.

For example, I would prefer to have deleted Castro and given a edit summary like, 'not notable as per rule x', so the person who added Castro could come and argue their point, rather than in been arbitrarily deleted because the editor does not feel that a new leader every 40 years is worth an entry in 2008.

If we had some clear, well written rules/parameters we, (the 2008 watchers), would know what to delete and what reason to give for the deletion. FFMG (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

by Totnesmartin (talk) It would be nice to have clear rules and parameters, but we're writing about the world and its people - there are no clear dividing lines between who/what should be in or out. Perhaps after the unblock we could have a rule that nothing else gets included or removed without being discussed first. Could we all agree to that, and then get this page unprotected? It's ridiculous having the current year's article blocked. I'll take a straw poll actually:

Cutting in. All I saw on this page was one editor going up against an overwhelming movement to shrink the article. I saw strong support for our changes. Now that we've actually started implementing things, people have concerns. That's fine. Let's discuss it. Whatever got us here is water under the bridge. I don't know if the talk page first idea is the best, so I've proposed another solution that is much more simple and I think is at least worth a try. See the new proposal below. Wrad (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have moved "November 24 - NASA will launch Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and LCROSS impactor, to the moon." to 2009 article, it will now launch on February 27, 2009. Orion11M87 (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am removing "August 7 - The Large Hadron Collider (located at CERN, near Geneva, Switzerland), the world’s largest particle physics laboratory, begins operation.[citation needed]", the date and information are not right. And I am adding a new entry on first beam in LHC (switch on) with citation in September. Orion11M87 (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC) It's now switching ON on September 10, 2008. Orion11M87 (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

No Edits should be made to 2008 without discussion on the talk page first. Any undiscussed edits to be moved to the talk page for discussion. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

That's just not the way Wikipedia works. And who would have the final say anyway? As it is most of the items removed were POV, why would this system be any different? FFMG (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose, though I think the talk page of this article is underused. Wrad (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. This would just make Wikipedia too slow at adding information. ~AH1^(TCU) 14:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This straw poll is now closed. We're going with Wrad's idea. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternate thread from earlier in this discussion

The items were removed because they failed to meet the most basic wikipedia guidleines namely Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (particularly Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) and Wikipedia:Notability. The argument that similar entries have been included in other years is not sufficient for inclusion in this page; those other entries should be removed as well. As several attempts have been made to remove entries for the preceding reasons the burden of proof lies with those who wish to include them (none has been provided so far). Merely reverting them and saying "this hasn't been discussed" does not constitute a discussion. No justifiable reason for the inclusion/retention of these entries has yet been produced. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's time we started following policy around here. Wrad (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Elections, sporting and weather events are notable. They are listed on other years and they should be on this one too. --Tocino 23:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, you are in violation of the wikipedia WP:3RR policy and need to stop reverting multiple editors. If you are really interested in discussing, then discuss, as we have, and stop reverting when it is apparent that most editors disagree with you. Wrad (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you need more than just a bare majority to delete all of this information. --Tocino 23:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

NO ONE has the authority to revert as many times as you have this article just now. There is no excuse for it at all. You are the only one reverting in the face of four other editors who revert back. Wrad (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And no one has the authority to delete, without consensus, scores of entries which have been put in place previously by a countless number of editors. --Tocino 00:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a ton of consensus for that on this page. You need to obey the 3RR rule right now regardless of how you might feel or how mad you are or how stupid you think I am. There is no excuse for what you have done. The only reason I haven't reported you is because I think there is a chance you didn't know about the policy until just now. Now you know about it and I'm going to hold you to it. Wrad (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have no idea why both entries on Raul Castro were deleted, Fidel Castro has been Cuba's president, for what, 40+ years? Anyway, for now I've removed the image of Raul Castro as the article isn't mentioning him at all. Also, I removed some redundant spacing in May and fixed the alignment because the shortness of May was causing an extra space at the top of June. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I don't know how that got mixed into this either. I just added all the Castro stuff back in. We just need to stop reverting and start talking around here. I want Tocino and the rest to say exactly what is wrong with my outline at the top of this section. Simply saying they are notable just isn't going to cut it. Wrad (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In any case, there's a glaring POV issue if anyone stipulates which national elections "[a]ffect the world as a whole." No election affects all nations, and no election affects only one nation. It would be nice, though, to state the results of the elections in the article that have already transpired, rather than simply saying, "Elections in X." Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If an election is just like any other election and there's nothing special about it, it shouldn't be here, but on the Elections in 2008 page. There's nothing POV about that, it's just how Wikipedia is. We must of necessity place limits on what we put where. If we have sub-articles, we need to use them. We simply can't have everything, we HAVE to stipulate which elections to keep out of this article. Which ones do we want to keep out? We can't have all of them. I admit that there are no elections that affect everyone, but you also have to admit that some are more notable than others, and the less notable ones don't belong here. Wrad (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well...what, exactly, do you propose as WP:NPOV criteria for determining whose elections matter enough to be included? (Population? A third of the world lives in India or China. Land mass? Then we're talking Russia, Canada, USA, etc. Emphasis on the "etc."--where do we draw the line? Attention garnered [ideally? actually?] by worldwide media? Browse the BBC, at least, long enough and you'll lose count of how many nations are given some noteworthy amount of coverage. Pick a handful of criteria, and pretty soon the whole planet will be notable enough. Which is what WP:NPOV--and, maybe even more so, WP:CSB--tells us from the outset, anyway.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Have it be only elections that make international news (provide news refs from at least three continents to prove it). I watch Middle Eastern News regularly, and they cover the US election and the Zimbabwe election regularly. Wrad (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed all this, work, y'know. I removed items for being irrelevant because there are limits on how big an article should be. If 256k articles were acceptable there'd be less of a problem about inclusion, but currently 32k is the recommendation. As for individual things I removed, if I got it wrong then OK, so I'm not perfect. I was wrong about removing Castro; I assumed a dictator being replaced by his brother wasn't really earth-shaking, and didn't consider Fidel's iconic status (funny how these collectivist states centre round a dominant personality, isn't it?). Finally, as I seem to have said before, there are subarticles one click away. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say that if a few mistakes are made in an edit, the answer is addressing those mistakes individually, not reverting. Wrad (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Deaths

Perhaps the best method to control the size of the Deaths area is to simply make a separate article for it (separate from the current one) named "Major Deaths in 2008". It would take a lot of work to standardize this, but it would clean up the year pages considerably. President Ward (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest limiting the number of deaths to around 25 per year or so. Whether we like it or not, we simply have to make a judgement on who is more notable than whom and move most of these people to the Deaths in 2008 article, as he says. Wrad (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the following restrictions could be applied:

• Actors/actresses/other film/tv/stage people: Intenrationally recognised awards (ie. Academy/Emmy/Bafta/Cannes) winners (or at least (multiple) nominees)
• Pop music: Multiple Gold/Platinum records; multiple Grammys
• Scientists: Nobel laureates and similar international recognition
• Authors: Nobel, Pulitzer and Booker winners/nominees; repeat best sellers or multiple multi-million sellers
• Sports people: Olympic Gold medalists (perhaps restricted further?); World Champions (ditto); world record breakers (internationally recognised sports only)
• Politicians: State (country) leaders or otherwise internationally significant
• Religion: Leaders of internationally recognised religions (not minor sects)

Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you show us on a sandbox what the Deaths section would look like if this were implemented? That would give us a clearer idea of what you have in mind and where we all differ on things. I think it's a good start. Wrad (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A first attempt has reduced January to 11 entries, including 3 non-winning actors/actresses, 2 WWI veterans and the leader of the Greek Orthodox Church (is that an international religion???). So it could potentially be reduced to 5. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 08:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think 25 deaths for the whole year is pushing it slightly, although I think 50 is the highest you could go to. (Assuming the page is cut down drastically, something I am not completely averse to, but currently oppose) For the record, the current inclusion criteria for deaths on this page (which I've been following) is that they most have at least two articles on a foreign language Wikipedia, as this gives some evidence of international notability. I think any criteria we impose will be subject to potential POV issues. Perhaps inclusion could be restricted to people whose death was reported by the major news agencies across the world? I don't know, but I think this requires a lengthy discussion before anything is deemed to have "consensus". Gran² 11:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that any restriction would introduce POV challenges is not a reason to make the page violate WP:SIZE policy. We can do this. It will take work, but we can shrink the article and maintain NPOV. I'm beginning to sense a growing idea in these discussion. I'd like to propose that anything added to this article has to be cited to at least three sources from three different continents, (wikipedia, in this case, does not count as a source). I propose we try this once the page is unblocked and see how it works. I think it would be a move in the right direction. Wrad (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The event on the 11 Jannuary should be removed, 11 deaths by helicopter crash is not world wide relevant event. There has been many other helicopters crashes in 2008 with same or more amount of deaths (if that is a parameter, given it's the only thing noted) and they are not listed. I am quite sure that 11 deaths in an helicoper crash is not in the 25 most relevant deaths. Gabriele Dini Ciacci (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal = 3 continent rule

Every event and death in the article is required to have citations from three different continents (Wikipedia, of course, not counting as a source). The burden of proof lies on the person who adds the new event. I believe that this would be a fair and NPOV approach. It's simple. Either an article has the three required sources and stays, or it doesn't and is taken out after a certain grace period. No strings attached. After one month of doing this, we can review how it is working and where we want to go from there. Wrad (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Might be a bit of a challenge, but I'm all for it, especially considering that we already have the more comprehensive Deaths in 2008. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I follow Middle East news quite a bit, so I'll be able to help a bit there. Several events currently listed are covered in Arabic by their news networks. Some even have English coverage. Wrad (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if foreign-language sites are normally allowed, but then if, say, al-Jazeera mention something in English then it's probably notable outside the Middle East. Another thing is that (If I understand the three-continent rule correctly) it means three citations for each entry. But that's better than none. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Foreign language sites are allowed on English Wikipedia if there is no English alternative. I doubt that that will happen much here, though, since most major news sites translate into english. Wrad (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

... not all news is notable enough in 3 continets, africa won't care as much about a north american thing as they are in here... aussy land, eh.--Jakezing (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well... isn't that the point? We only want to cover the news that is notable in three continents. Africa has just as much clout in this system as any other continent. Wrad (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This is probably a good way to go, as long as we're mindful of the inherent media bias towards"light" and entertainment stories. Scarlet Johansen turning up to a film premiere with smudged lipstick would get reported in America, Britain and Australia (satisfying the 3 continent rule), but a flood in Paraguay or a strike in Sri Lanka might not get reported outside the continent it happened in. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So we seem to have support to at least try it, but mostly people just aren't talking! Tocino, FFMG, Arthur Rubin, Derby... ? Anyone there? :) Wrad (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a good start to me, I think as we go along we should have a section to 'refine' the rule here. I agree that a Hollywood funny story might make more headlines than it should and we might have to pay special attention to it. FFMG (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable basis for inclusion/exclusion. No doubt there will be exceptions but as this page obviously needs to be reduced it's a good start. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Sorry about that. It should be pointed out that I'm probably not going to be able to verify more than 2 continents, so I won't be adding items to the article. This may be a good thing.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You can always ask me for a third if you feel strongly about something. Wrad (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we have a clear consensus here, so let's start implementing this. Any news event or death on this page without refs from three different continents will be moved to a subarticle after a grace period of two weeks starting today. Wrad (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, let's do it. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

So are we doing this then? I'll start sourcing some of the deaths. Gran² 09:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think we are - even if I did just despairingly remove some new Britney Spears stuff. Celebrity gossip is a free target. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the two weeks is for the older stuff. Newer stuff we're gonna be tougher on. Wrad (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of deleting a lot of the deaths. Right now, since the deletion of most events, the deaths section takes up a disproportionate amount of space in the article. --Tocino 20:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As for criteria for deaths, the subject should have at least ten articles in different language WPs in order to be listed on here. --Tocino 20:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'd agree with that. I had been adding people with two other language pages, but ten would be a better way to cut it down. Gran² 20:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a list quickly of names with 10 different language WP articles. Also, does the English article count as one of ten different articles? --RandomOrca2 (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Done with the list, note that ones in italics will only count if the English article counts as part of the 10.

January: Yo-Sam Choi, Maila Nurmi, Edmund Hillary, Brad Renfro, Bobby Fischer, Suzanne Pleshette, Heath Ledger, Gordon B. Hinckley, Suharto, Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens

February: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Roy Scheider, Alfredo Reinado, Tom Lantos, Imad Mughniyah, Badri Patarkatsishvili, Henri Salvador, Steve Fossett, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Natalia Bessmertnova, Lydia Shum, Janez Drnovšek, William F. Buckley, Jr.

March: Raúl Reyes, Jeff Healey, Giuseppe Di Stefano, Gary Gygax, Joseph Weizenbaum, Lazare Ponticelli, Chiara Lubich, Anthony Minghella, Arthur C. Clarke, Hugo Claus, Paul Scofield, Neil Aspinall, Richard Widmark, Manuel Marulanda, Jean-Marie Balestre, Dith Pran, Jules Dassin

April: Hrvoje Ćustić, Charlton Heston, Ernesto Corripio y Ahumada, Patrick Hillery, John Archibald Wheeler, Ollie Johnston, Benoît Lamy, Edward Norton Lorenz, Aimé Césaire, Albert Hofmann

May: Anthony Mamo, Philipp von Boeselager, Leopoldo Calvo Sotelo, François Sterchele, Leyla Gencer, Irena Sendler, Saad Al-Abdullah Al-Salim Al-Sabah, Willis Lamb, Sydney Pollack

June: Yves Saint Laurent, Tommy Lapid, Bo Diddley, Mel Ferrer, Agata Mróz-Olszewska, Dino Risi, Šaban Bajramović, Algis Budrys, Karen Asrian, Chinghiz Aitmatov, Ove Andersson, Võ Văn Kiệt, Stan Winston, Tsutomu Miyazaki, Cyd Charisse, Jean Delannoy, George Carlin, Arthur Chung, Leonid Hurwicz, Ruslana Korshunova, Don S. Davis

July so far: Jesse Helms, Michael E. DeBakey, Tony Snow, György Kolonics --RandomOrca2 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me. We can count English as the 10th language for certain cases (so the minimum is 9 non-English WP articles). --Tocino 22:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've tested how it'd look like(with no pictures included, although some can be added later on) at User:RandomOrca2/2008 deaths. Opinions? --RandomOrca2 (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Well, never mind, seems sort of pointless now that you've updated it. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There still seems to be too many people of questionable notability in the Deaths list. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The three-continent rule is great, but the whole 10-language thing smells a bit like WP:POKEMON. Should WP really be using itself as a determinant of notability? Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cosmic Latte, 10-language is in-fact flawed. Everyone please discuss on what new ways should be used? — Orion11M87 (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the 10-language article system is flawed. For example, under the current system, Mark Speight is not notable enough for inclusion as he only has 4 articles. However, I've found articles from New Zealand and China, as well as Britain, which mention his death. Therefore he would be deemed notable for here under the three continent system. Is he internationally notable under any system? Judge for yourself. Gran² 08:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The three-continent system is fine, IMO, and I'd suggest extending it to deaths as well, by looking for obituaries in news sources on three continents. This system relies on WP:RS's, whereas the 10-language rule relies on WP itself; it is self-referential. If I know five languages and you know five more, then you and I could elevate any ol' chap to notability according to that rule--you write five aritlces, I write five more, and voila! Not only is it self-referential; it is inherently prone to abuse. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I see your point and I fully agree that we should not use WP itself as a rule.

But the 3 continents rule works, (kind of), because an article is written on a particular event implying a bit more research and decision making was involved, (to include it or not, what to say, who to quote).

Whereas obituaries are more often than not a mention of a fact rather than a researched article. I would even go as far as saying that some papers use them as place fillers, (with all due respects).

Give me any death that was rejected over the past few weeks and I will almost certainly find a news article for most of them, (more so if they are Westerners).

So I think that the same rule will not work for both.

And, the fact remains that a lot of 'not notable' articles are in fact notable by our own 3 continents rules. We are just not telling the editor about it and we don't always go out looking for 3 continents articles. FFMG (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I'm sort of thinking aloud here, and this is somewhat arbitrary and would need to make room for the occasional exception, but how about including them if their English WP article has at least, say, 10 cited WP:RS's? Or 15 RS's between two different-language articles? Or something like that? It's still a little self-referential, I know, but at the end of the day it's all about WP:RS. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Test case : Nelson Mandela 90th

Nelson Mandela is turning 90 today, (July 18), and I think every major newspaper worth its salt around the world is mentioning it one way or another.
So, given the 3 continent rule, that would warrant an entry in the 2008 article. But should it really be here? FFMG (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

But it is only news! Someone/anyone (not matter how famous) merely turning 90 cannot realistically be considered internationally or historically notable. Even with the "3 continent rule" we still need to follow the basic wiki guidelines re: notability. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus overrules whatever other rules we might have. If we agree it doesn't belong, then it doesn't. Wrad (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It's very now but every day is somebody's birthday. 1918 mentions his birth, so there's no need for his birthday to be mentioned here, even if he is an icon. Ignore the rule and leave his birthday out. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Three-continent rule + consensus + common sense = win. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Should births be dealt with this way?

I was immediately dumbfounded by this edit, however, after having this discussion relayed to me [2][3] it makes some sort of sense. I still would like to pose this question. Should births be subjected to the same standard as the overcrowded deaths and events sections? There are presently four items in Category:2008 births. __meco (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am fine (and happy) with the 10 article rule. — Orion11M87 (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As the editor that removed the entry, I think the 10 article rule is appropriate for births also. But even more to the point, none of the 4 in Category:2008 births are notable on their own. The criteria that seems to have been used to establish notability for all 4 articles is that notability is inherited from their parents/grandparents. I am going to bring this up at WP:Bio also. Jons63 (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have already brought this issue up at WikiProject Royalty. You might want to update yourself on that discussion also. __meco (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Elections

It was agreed up ahead that unless the election is covered on all continents then it doesn't belong on this page. Well then why is the recent Canadian election listed on here? Nothing really changed. The governing party increased its total by ten seats or so. Under the old format, before the changes were agreed to on this talk page in the "Stuff that shouldn't be on this article" section, national elections from Mongolia to Malta were mentioned here, so the recent Canadian elections would qualify. But as I said we agreed to trim down the article so elections which aren't highly notable on the international stage are no longer mentioned. If we keep the recent Canadian election listed then we should include the Serbian parliamentary elections in May which had a huge impact on the future of the Balkans, or we should add the Paraguayan presidential election where an opposition candidate was elected for the first time in 61 years. OK, so what should we do? Remove the Canadian elections or add more elections to the article? --Tocino 16:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove Canada. Wrad (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting for more opinions, but it looks like someone has removed it, which is fine with me. --Tocino 16:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 in Books

Shouldn't only notable books, films, and television shows be mentioned in the 2008 in Fiction be mentioned? Most of the books that are in there now only have notable authors.98.166.139.216 (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

On U.S. election

Just a general note. Do not consider using POV on noting it as historic; and it's first time for U.S., so do not remove the note on first time. Likewise same was done for the LHC. — Orion11M87 (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if that sounded rude, but there is only a limited space to add summaries.

LHC is historic because it is the first time in the world that such an experiment is done. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is not the first black man, (or woman), to become president. I agree that it is a first in the US, but this is an international page, (and I am not sure why his race is such a major thing, is that the only thing that matters about him?).

If we consider the Russian elections not worthy to be on this page, then surely the skin color of the 44th president also does not matter as much. FFMG (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. By LHC I mean the removal of its significance sentence, which I added back in. Cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 07:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)