Jump to content

Talk:2008/Archive 3

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

Spaceflight

There has recently been a disagreement as to the notability of various spaceflights currently included in this article. I suggest that the majority of these are insufficently notable (for THIS article) for the following reasons:

  1. There is a page for spaceflights. As with elections and sports the majority of entries that have been previously included in this article would be more correctly placed in the subject-specific year articles.
  2. The majority (all?) are neither unique nor world (if that is the correct term!) firsts! If it is the first for a country's space program it should be included in that country's year page as well as the spaceflight page. This criteria is, or is meant to be, applied to all other subjects in this, and other year, article(s).
  3. While the International Space Station is a significant (ie notable) event/subject in space it is not the first space station and even if any one flight to it could be considered more significant than the others would it really be sufficiently notable for this page? Even if it were the others must logically be even less notable and have even less reason to be included.
  4. As with other subjects, disasters and terrorist acts spring to mind, the increased frequency of similar entries must reduce the relative notability of each such entry to the point where the "lesser" entries are insufficently notable for a general/summary article such as this.

Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, and in that particular case there has been 2 launches to the ISS this year alone and 18 in total, so this one entry is not rally notable.
In fact there is even an article about all those flights. FFMG (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

News Years Eve and the 2008 intro

Seeing that everyone is in different time zones, the year won't end at the same time for everyone, i know this is a bit early to discuss it but what will we say in the intro that the year is the current or not the current year when the UTC (time zone wikipedia uses) strikes 2009? People in north and south america will still be in 2008 while wikipedia will be in 2009. last year i tried this approach "2007 is/was the current year" which was reverted and according to wikipedia clock "2007 was the current year" or something akin to that only to be called a vandel/ What are your thoughts? Pro66 (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the problem, are you saying that at 12:00am, (Wikipedia time), you want to change the article to "2008 is/was the current year" rather than "2008 was the current year"?
Neither sound right, surely the word 'current' is wrong in both cases.
I think we should simply change it to, (something like), 2008 (MMVIII) was a leap year that started on Tuesday of the Gregorian calendar in the 21st century.
The same as what was done in 2007. FFMG (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

School Shootings/Schhoting with more than x killed?

Can we come to some kind of decision/consensus about school shootings, (or even shootings in general). I see that user Abog keeps adding the Illinois event even thought there was hardly, (if any), front page newspaper coverage of it around the world, it is definitely a US event, (even though the coverage itself was not that great), but it is not a 'world' event, (most of the arguments are already on the archived talk page).

I am not sure what makes this particular shooting notable, the Columbine High School massacre was much worse in the US for one or even the Virginia Tech massacre last year, so it is not a first. Sadly, school shootings are so common that we even have an article about them, (School shooting).

Otherwise we need to add many, many more entries for this year, Matti Juhani Saari in Finland, where 11 people were killed, (just for a school shooting). Or maybe the other 3 school shootings in the US this year alone.

So what is the consensus? Do we add all shootings? All school shootings? Shootings where more than 5, 10, 50 people are killed? We need some kind of limit similar to the death section. FFMG (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As with disasters (natural and manmade), and terrorist activities this is a subject which needs either a separate year page and some sort of criteria (ie minimum numbers or some other exceptional noatability) before they are included on this page. It is probably something that needs to be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years, but that might take some time! In the case of the Illinois event it is neither the first such instance, nor the biggest (if that is even a suitable criteria). There are no other distinguishing characteristics either historically or internationally. It is in fact really just a News event (which there are pages for) and it should not be included anywhere more general than 2008 in the United States. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The fact that this event did make worldwide headlines (not necessarily front page everywhere, but in many cases it was) and that it has an entire paragraph dedicated to it in the year-in-review sections of the two most prominent World Almanacs seems to indicate to me that it was a significant event of global notability in 2008 (keep in mind, these publications are very limited in space and try to convey information of global influence). There are also plenty of school shootings, train wrecks, and plane crashes included in the year articles that really were just another tragedy or another disaster and weren't the first, weren't the worst (i.e. deadliest), and probably won't be the last either. I think it is a given that Columbine and Virginia Tech will always be included for being the worst high school and college shootings respectively. However, incidents like the Jonesboro massacre (1998), Red Lake High School massacre (2005), Amish school shooting (2006) are included in their respective year categories and had less casualties (deaths & injuries combined) than the NIU shooting and I think may have received less coverage. All I'm asking for is fairness. It would be different if I were to add a shooting that didn't make top headlines from the U.S. to the U.K. to Australia to Canada or one of the run-of-the-mill shootings where only 1 or 2 people die. I'm just trying to make sure there's fairness here and that incidents of an advanced caliber in which over 20 people were either maimed or killed and which received major coverage for several weeks are included. Also, I think that if we are using death thresholds, we should include injuries as well. While only six people were killed in the NIU incident, an exceptionally high number of people (18) were injured (many seriously), which means overall, more people were directly victimized than in most other shootings. Abog (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Other shootings are included in other year pages because nobody has bothered to apply the same standards of notability to them yet! Earlier year pages are full of the same country-specific or topic-specific entries which do not belong on year pages. Unfortunately there are not enough editors willing to (or have enough time to) edit them to appropriate wikipedia standards. A huge proportion of these are from the United States, in many cases because there is no "Year in the United States" page. This does not justify their inclusion on the year page. Recent years have been biased in favour of entries with extensive news coverage but that is not the same as historical notability (see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Point 5.). This page is supposed to be for the most notable international events. Entries of less notability should be included on the country- or topic-specific year pages, that is what they are there for. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
So, what you're saying then is that it is OK to delete all those school shootings from those year articles then? They're all not notable? Even ones like Jonesboro (which had less deaths than NIU), which ranked as one of the top 10 news topics of 1998. I just would like to resolve this and come to some sort of consensus here because it seems like this one incident is getting picked on. Meanwhile, the crazy guy who stabbed people in Tokyo (victimizing 17, as opposed to 24 for the NIU shooting) and a car bombing that killed just 5 at the Danish Embassy remain in this article. And if you need help, I can work to delete entries (or move to their respective country articles) which don't meet certain thresholds. I just don't want this to turn into a thing like last time where two people don't think that this event is notable (yet I think it is), it gets removed, but we continue to put off making an effort to get rid of items of equal or lesser notability in the years pages. And like FFMG said, some standards should be applied. Does the shooting have to be the deadliest ever? Or do we include the top 5 or top 10 shootings with the most casualties in the years pages? The deadliest one or two that particular year? Or more than 10 casulaties, 20+? I just don't want any double standards, whereby this school shooting isn't allowed but everything else is grandfathered in for the time being as we wait forever for some sort of standards for inclusion to be applied. Abog (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A couple of points:
  • As we already mentioned, this shooting did not make headlines, not in the UK, probably not in Canada, not in Australia, not in South Africa, (or Africa), and probably not in Asia either. You are welcome to include some references, (as I did in our last discussion). So in most cases it wasn't in the headlines.
Um, yes it did make headlines in those countries. Where were you when this was brought up before? Did you even bother to look at the sources I provided at the time? Here's the UK source ([1]), the Australia source ([2]), the Canada source ([3]), the South Africa source {[4]), and an Asian source {[5] - this one even says the Indian embassy was following it closely). So, in most cases, it was in the headlines. So, is that notable enough for you now? Abog (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Those two Almanacs are not 'prominent', in fact I never heard of them until you mentioned them, (does Wikipedia have an article for them?). I suspect they are very US orientated and most of their entries would not make it to this page, (and remember we only have one page to fill, they have many).
Yes, they are very prominent. One is the bestselling almanac (World Almanac) and the other ranks up there as well (Time Almanac). Just because you haven't personally heard of them, doesn't mean they are not prominent. And both write from a pretty international perspective, particularly in the year-in-review sections. Abog (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I think some of the previous events you mentioned are included because _at the time_ they were notable, but in the case of the Illinois shooting, it was not the first, it was not the first this year, it was not the first this year in the US, it was not the first in the world, it was not even the deadliest this year, (Matti Juhani Saari in Finland was I think).
Yes, but it had the most casualties (when you count injuries) and victimized the most people of any school shooting this year (24). And really, none of the shootings I mentioned were the first or the deadliest at the time either. Red Lake wasn't as deadly as Columbine. The Amish shooting wasn't as deadly as many before it. The only one I could see is Jonesboro, but there were even school shootings before that. Abog (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe the Akihabara massacre could be removed, maybe it was included because it was a first in Japan? Maybe you should start a discussion about it or just remove it.
I just did start a discussion about it. And I'm not a deletionist like yourself, as I prefer to keep all notable entries. I'm just making the point that if we're going to include this, we should include the NIU shooting as well. Abog (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The Danish embassy bombing on the other hand is a lot more notable, it involved at least 2 countries, an embassy, had many international reactions and so forth. So that one is probably notable. It is not just about the number of bodies but also the wider impact of the event on the region/world.
But if we go by your standards, it wasn't the first embassy bombing and it wasn't the deadliest. But somehow embassy bombings are always notable? Abog (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • You can be bold and remove entries you feel should not be here, (or in previous years), if someone disagree, (as in this case), they will either revert or start a discussion. But you cannot use non notable entries as a good reason to add more non notable entries.
FFMG (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that it is notable, and I've already proven so with countless international sources that prove this was a global headline for about a week after it happened, as well as two prominent Almanacs doing a write-up of it in the year-in-review sections. I'm not saying any of these events are not notable. I'm saying this event is just as notable as everything else listed. And notability and sources have already been proven. Therefore, I think that since notability has been established and reliable sources are there to back it up, I believe this should be included now. Abog (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Not only have you not "proven" anything (you have merely provided some evodence supporting your point of view, which is not the same as proof) you are also ignoring the current consensus of this talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are confusing front page headlines with simple internet articles, (from the US section), please, see the previous discussion, where we give you references that it did not make the headlines, (unlike previous school shootings).
We also explain why this was not an international event,
We also explain why another school shooting is not more important than ...election in a mediocre country... as you claim.
Now you are even saying ...global headline for about a week after it happened, when it clearly wasn't, it wasn't on the day of the shooting itself, (as mentioned).
Some of the references you gave previously even highlight that this is not the first shooting of the kind in the US or in the world.
The references you are now trying to give is from a US centric point of view. I would be curious to know if those books are even sold outside the US. As it is in printed form, not many of us can actually see the references.
But, you still keep going around the fact that this is not the first this year, this is not the first in the US, this is not the first in the world. You are comparing other non notable entries with this one.
This is not 2008 in the United States, this is not an international event otherwise the shooting in Finland is surely more notable, (and probably shooting, killing in other schools around the world).
Stop re-adding this event, otherwise many more entries, (of other school shootings), will have to be added.
The consensus is, as it was the last time, to not include that entry.
FFMG (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing should be the first of its kind to appear in this article. Nothing in here is a first. Elections, train wrecks, bombings, economic turmoil, wars, and school shootings have happened for years. Nothing is new. The faces change, the magnitude changes, but not much else does. But that doesn't mean you don't include something because it wasn't the first. Also, you have not provided any proof whatsoever that it did not make headlines. Since most news internet sites don't archive what happened to be on the front page of their website or newspaper every day very well, it is hard to prove. I, on the other hand, have made an effort to research and prove that multiple articles were written and published about the incident in just about every major news outlet in every part of the globe. And most were within the week after the shooting, usually around Feb. 15 or 16 or so. Considering it happened in the afternoon in the U.S., while it was nighttime in much of the rest of the world, the news wasn't necessarily published until the following few days, especially when more facts were understood. And I did provide evidence that newspapers in Australia and the UK did in-depth stories months after the event focusing on things like safety and privacy in the wake of the Virginia Tech and NIU shootings. And I think we should add the Finland shooting. We write a lengthy entry everytime the U.S. stock market has a rollercoaster day, but yet we can't include the two deadliest school shootings of the year? Also, the almanacs I mentioned are intended to be from a global perspective in their year-in-review sections (not U.S.-centric), and no matter where you live in the world, I'm sure you'd be able to find a copy at your nearest major library or bookstore. Granted, the editions I am sourcing were just released within the last week, so it may be some time before you can find them. Nonetheless, the fact that the India Times wrote multiple articles on the NIU shooting and that their U.S. embassy was monitoring the situation at the time should indicate that this event was internationally notable. To be fair, I will add the Finland shooting. Also, there really is no consensus here. Right now, it's just 2 against 1. If you include the past discussion and this one, it's 3 vs. 2. It really isn't enough to form a consensus. I have already provided enough evidence of this event's notability and it's a sourced entry, and I will therefore continue to ensure it remains. It was listed for several months and only became a problem when you guys decided to get back at me for trying to add an image of the event to this article. Abog (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think we should get back to the topic at hand, and quit picking on this particular incident. I understand the need to draw lines and establish limits so that the articles don't get too lengthy, cluttered, and to be fair. Right now, it seems that there has been some responsibility in the years articles so that minor incidents resulting in 1 or 2 casulaties aren't listed, and looking at the year articles, I'd say that the unwritten limit seems to be about 5 deaths or more for school shootings. Which means that only the NIU shooting and the Finland shooting would be included in this year's article. I think that is pretty reasonable, and a limit on 5 deaths or more usually warrants no more than 2 or 3 entries on school shootings in any given year. This means that most of the incidents currently included in the years articles would be listed and we wouldn't have to make drastic changes that would remove clearly notable incidents like the Jonesboro massacre. Most school shootings that receive global news coverage and global concern fall into the category of having more than 5 deaths. In addition, it also ensures that all shooting incidents in which one person is clearly out to get another person are not included, and only true massacres where the intent was to kill as many people as possible are included. I think that is acceptable. Can we agree to that? Abog (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I did some research, looking at the article list of school-related attacks, and by establishing a limit of 5 deaths or more, only 28 school-related attacks (keep in mind that many are also terrorist-related or war-related) from 1927 up until 2008 would be included in their respective year articles. In most years, that would amount to either 0 or 1 incidents being listed each year. Only 2008 and 2004 would have two incidents listed. 2007 would be the only oddball year in having 4 incidents listed, one of which is military-related and one of which occurred off-campus and may not necessarily warrant inclusion then. Abog (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
We have gone over this already, this has been discussed at length. I see you started Canvassing for support as you did last time so there is no point in going around in circles.
The fact that there are 2 articles about school shootings/attacks, (list of school-related attacks and School shooting), should tell you that school shootings, (in general), are not really notable. Sadly it happens all too often.
And, as already mentioned, this particular shooting was not a really notable, event even in the US, (I know, I know, you disagree on that point), so I think it is fair to have it in the 2008 in the United States article only. FFMG (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
You know it really is sad that you aren't willing to come to a compromise and a consensus on school shootings overall and setting some basic standards for inclusion, other than "notability", which is highly subjective and hard to determine since the global media is so unusually fascinated by school shootings. I suggested some standards for inclusion (5 deaths or more) but you have absolutely no thoughts whatsover. It just goes to show that you are so close-minded and hellbent on seeking revenge on me and winning this battle instead of setting some standards for inclusion of certain school shootings in the year articles. All I'm asking for is fairness, and having this incident and the Finnnish incident be removed while incidents of less severity remain is not fair and it doesn't make much sense from a notability perspective. And not having a clear answer on what incidents should be included and what shouldn't is very troubling and will only cause more problems in the future. Yes, school shootings may happen often. But so do plane and train wrecks and hurricanes...but it doesn't mean you don't include the significant such incidents every time they happen. Hell, we must have at least five entries about hurricanes or cyclones or typhoons every year? But yet we can't have one or two entries on school shootings? I happen to think 5 or more deaths is a significant school shooting. What do you think? It's already been established that this incident made international headlines (even though you continue to deny it), so we can't go by that anymore. So, what's the death threshold then? Abog (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I know we have our rule about 3 continents and news and stuff, but we have to acknowledge common sense. A growing consensus of editors is opposing one editor on the issue of this events notability. I think it is time to acknowledge that. Your plea for fairness really isn't fair at all on closer examination. If we include all school shootings, the we are snubbing hurricanes and earthquakes and kidnappings and other events. The fact is we can't have everything, and consensus decides what stays. Wrad (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, "commmon sense" trumps policies? That's a little subjective, don't you think? Because what I think to be common sense (i.e. if it makes the year-in-review section of major almanacs, it must be notable in the context of the year) may be something different to someone else. Never did I suggest we include all school shootings. The overwhelming majority of them involve casualites less than 5, and my plan eliminates those minor incidents and ensures only the major ones our occurred, and other than the year 2007, only one, two, or zero school shooting incidents would appear in each year article, which is nothing compared to the amount of hurricanes, earthquakes, train crashes, elections, and more that are included each year. We are in no way snubbing hurricanes or earthquakes. If you think five or more deaths is still a little too low, would 10 deaths be more suitable? It is irresponsible to be subjective over what to include and an objective rule needs to be in place. If it's the three-continent rule or passing a certain threshold of casualties, whatever it is, something needs to be decided. Because right now, it is unclear what is to be included regarding school shootings. The NIU shooting and Finland shooting had more casualties and received more international coverage than many other shootings that have happened in the past that are currently included in the year articles, and we need to be fair here. If these incidents aren't going to be included, than others have to go as well. Likewise, if it is determined that a shooting that only had five deaths should stay, than these should stay as well. Coming to an agreement on some casualty threshold or limit on the number of incidents that can be included in a given year would help with this. Abog (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is itself a policy, so how could it trump itself? Wrad (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Just replying to all I would have to think that if Jonesboro and Columbine are mentioned in their respective years and Kent State shooting is, then the NIU shooting should be as well. This shooting received coverage from CNN, Fox News, and BBC, not just BBC AmericaPjb1015 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

summary

some one should add a summary at the top of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.140.83 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 2 December 2008

I am not sure I follow, what kind of summary are you referring to? There is already a table of content and a small entry/section about the year in general. FFMG (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be nice to write a summary of the biggest events of the year, but it would also be very difficult, which is why it hasn't been done. Wrad (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I see, yes it would be nice, but in practice very hard. Maybe after the 31st we could try and propose something here and discuss it.
At the end of the day the problem will be with what to mention and not mention, people will be upset because certain events are mentioned while others are not. That will be the difficult part. FFMG (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Probably best to wait for the end of the year, yes. These events would be on my list:
  1. Worldwide financial crisis
  2. War on terror, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and India attack
  3. Political events such as Bhutan dropping the monarchy, Kosovo independence, Obama's election
  4. China (the Olympics, milk problems, and earthquakes)
  5. Piracy on the rise

- Wrad (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup template?

The Cleanup template was added a short while ago, but I see that not much is been done about it.

I am not even sure what we need to cleanup, or what specific issues there are with the article, (related to cleanup).

Seen that the year is close to an end, maybe we should tackle it now. So, why was it added? What needs to be cleaned up? FFMG (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Seen that no one seem to know about the cleanup tag we might as well remove it. FFMG (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Since the article is not on a specific topic, but just a list of major events in the 2008, a cleanup is difficult to perform. One possible way is to remove events of little historical value, but who is to judge that, except for in the most obvious cases? I agree with the above statement that the article do not require any cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBM 72 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

LeRoi Moore

Okay, so I posted in the deaths section of the death of LeRoi Moore, the saxophonist for Dave Matthews Band, and it was deleted. I see no reason why he should get deleted and others remain up there. Is he somehow less important than the other figures on the site? Also, it was actually me that posted it. I wasn't logged in, but it was me. -- Interrupt_feed (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Deaths are not considered famous for the 2008 article unless they have at least nine foreign articles, Moore only has six. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a really strange reasoning, but alright. Why not just make a separate page for deaths and births in 2008 or something? I think he's a notable mention, regardless of how many articles he's mentioned in. -- Interrupt_feed (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You mean an article like Deaths in 2008? FFMG (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Well....yeah. Something like that. Thanks for providing a link. -- Interrupt_feed (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Similar problem with Davey (Davy) Graham. Keeps being deleted. Not seen this "rule" about x number of foreign articles. But here are three...

New York Times............... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/arts/music/19graham.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1230501635-jxZanIwd2H5GghyWTN7Ymg

Wall Street Journal .....http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/lung-cancer-claims-guitarist-graham/story.aspx?guid=%7B1B5BB3F4-77BE-46FF-92DF-7BCD5811F4F2%7D

Los Angeles Times............ http://mobile.latimes.com/news.jsp?key=196976&rc=obt

No doubt it will be deleted again. And I'll put it back in again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.112.75 (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:2008/Archive 2#Proposal = 3 continent rule — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
No agreement was reached on that. Some wanted 3 continent references, others wanted 10 WP language articles (which seems a very odd way to define it). Which do you want? You seem to imply you want 3 continent references. Is that the case? If so, when I post them will you leave it in or look for another reason to delete it because YOU have never heard of him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.112.75 (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like consensus to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
So which do you want? 3 continent references? There is no concensus in that talk page. None.
The 10 foreign articles thing is for notable deaths only. The dead person must have at least ten articles on them in different languages throughout the wiki. As the link says, "As for criteria for deaths, the subject should have at least ten articles in different language WPs in order to be listed on here." Wrad (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
That was merely YOUR agreement with yourself. Many others, including Arthur Rubin, disagree with you. Cosmic Latte stated "The three-continent rule is great, but the whole 10-language thing smells a bit like WP:POKEMON".
Orion11M87 stated "I agree with Cosmic Latte, 10-language is in-fact flawed."
FFMG stated "I see your point and I fully agree that we should not use WP itself as a rule"
Cosmic Latte then made one further, different, suggestion that was ignored and no more discussion took place.
So you are actually in the minority.
Like I said. There is no concensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.105.249 (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments I left on FFMG's talk page..............

<quote>

I WILL continue to distrupt this page (I can have a new IP address whenever I want one) until one of you explains and (more importantly) properly discusses the rules that you apply to this page. It seems to me that this page is full of Americocentric sh*t (such as baseball, American football and "nobody" American actors that no one has heard of outside the USA) that the rest of the world doesn't know or care about but whenever anyone adds anything of significance to the rest of the world (but not America) it gets deleted.

I have asked repetetively about the rules for deaths but nowhere has anyone explained where the "10 foreign languages rule" comes from. Even you (on the discussion page) stated that the rule was flawed. I have checked every page I can find on this discussion and this rule simply seems to have appeared without any consensus.

I am not trying to be stubborn but I do object to the fact that a highly noted muscician such as Davey Graham (referenced in many languages in the normal press but not on WP - he was even responsible for one of the major hits of Simon and Garfunkle) gets continually deleted yet the entire page is full of American actresses, American actors and baseball games and players that have ZERO references or interest outside American Wiki editors.

This disruption of the page will not stop until I get a satisfactory answer to this question because it seems to me that the subject is simply ignored until the "sh*t hits the fan".

Wiki is a worlwide effort. It is NOT American.

Look at the other stuff on this page. Do Americans really think that anyone outside of the USA gives a cr*p about American football or baseball? Most people outside USA don't even know what they are.

</quote>

For the record, I am not American, or even English for that matter. But a consensus is a consensus. As you clearly point out, even I though that the idea was a bit flawed, but I had to abide by the consensus that was reached.
That's the way Wikipedia works. You are welcome to propose a new way of dealing with deaths, and, if a consensus is reached we will all follow that new way. forcing your way will never work, imagine if we all did that.
So, until we have a new idea+consensus, we will have to go with the current system.
As an aside, throwing insults, attacking others countries, threatening to do IP hopping, will not help to make you point heard, after so many years, Wikipedia is more than able to handle those threats, (locking the page was one of our options for example). FFMG (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll try again.................
"................until one of you explains and (more importantly) properly discusses the rules that you apply to this page"
"I have checked every page I can find on this discussion and this rule simply seems to have appeared without any consensus." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.120.42 (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If we are to apply the "10 foreign articles rule", surely we should be actually checking that the foreign articles contain some kind of useful information? For example, I don't speak Italian but I know that this article is just a stub. Should that technically count towards an article's 10 foreign articles? Surely we need a more rigorous test, otherwise some editors could just go around creating stub articles on other wikis, linking them here and then going "I've met the 10 foreign articles rule". ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 12:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is that easy to create so many articles, or even stubs just like that we are talking of 9 foreign languages here, how many of us know that many languages well enough?
And even if the article already has 9 articles, and the editor is able to add one more stub then maybe the article does deserve to be here. FFMG (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the main point I was trying to put across was that it seemed a very strange way of determining the notability for a person to be included on this page, and possibly a way that was open to some abuse. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 13:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we are all open to suggestions, but the logic behind it is sound, if there are 10 Wikipedia articles then it is a fair bet that the person was well known around the world and deserves an entry in this international page, otherwise it would need to go in to the 2008 in ... country article.
I fully agree that the system is open to abuses, and this is why this is only guideline, rather than a rule set in stone. If you think that a person that has 10 articles does not deserve to be listed then you can/could remove it, or even start a discussion about it here. FFMG (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
A perfect example is the entry, Lucas Sang, that was just added. The simple english Wikipedia article was created today, I suspect it was only created to meet the minimum requirements of this page.
But as most articles, (even the english one), are only stubs I suspect it should be removed. FFMG (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, hence my removing it now. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 19:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This article require a standard

I believe this article need a standard deciding which event to include. As of now, it is up to the opinion of each user. We must draw a line of what is important enough and what should be listed under category only, since as of today many events in politics, film, music, sports, etc. followed by or affecting hundreds of million people around the world that are listed only under categories whilst relatively unimportant things like car bombs in Bagdad are included in the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBM 72 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The hard part is attracting a large group to join in the discussion and coming to an agreement. Wrad (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
In June I made several attempts to apply the wiki guidelines of international and historical notability to this page and met considerable resistance from several users. At that time it was larger than it is now and included a very large number of entries which clearly belonged in sub-category year pages or individual country pages (some were barely worthy of inclusion there!). Eventually with the help of members of the Wiki Years Project a consensus was reached on some general guidelines for inclusion of entries on this page (of course agreement is not always universal). These guidelines have not yet been applied to other year pages largely because there are too few people attempting to do so and many like myself can't be bothered with edit wars when we have other pages to work on.
At present there are still no established guidelines for terrorist activities and disasters and that used for births (9 foreign-language articles) is a not really adequate as it cannot be applied to all years. As many users will be on holiday until next year it is unlikely much more can be done on this page as 2009 will be the focus of most activity (most of the guidelines for this page do not seem to have been applied particularly rigorously there yet). Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is so liable to be used for pov edits that I'm surprised it is allowed to exist - maybe its obscurity is the only thing that is preventing its deletion, the same obscurity that has preventing a proper set of guidelines being worked out. There are already a set of guidelines for the individual dates anniversaries articles [6] - I suggest they, as well as the recent Years WP:RY guidance, be used as a basis for deciding what should be included here. Meowy 15:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Christmas shootings

Is this story worth adding to the events for the year? CNN.com --68.60.67.149 (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"please don't make humongous edits like this on popular articles especially if they are filled with errors"

What exactly does this mean? This story is NOT filled with errors. The news stations have been reporting on it ever since it happened and we are constantly getting updates. So why can't this story be mentioned in the events? --68.60.67.149 (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That comment was in regard 23prootie's edits, not yours. Please feel free to reinsert that if you feel it has world-wide noteriety. There was a proposal that events should only be listed if they had news coverage on 3 continents. It was not formally accepted, but if you can confirm that, it would certainly help. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for clarifying that. I have seen on the actual article about the shootings that BBC news was reporting on it. (So that means 2 continents have reported it as far as I've seen) --68.60.67.149 (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, multiple shooting such as this are now too frequent to really be considered internationally and historically notable (unless a consensus can be reached on a minimum number of deaths to make such an event notable). See the discussion on school shootings above. Unless there are international implications this entry would probably be better placed in 2008 in the United States. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So does this mean that the event should NOT be in the events of December? --68.60.67.149 (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it should not be included on this page. Whether there are enough users around at this time of year to form a consensus is a different matter! DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I will keep it off this page and put it on 2008 in the United States. But why do you think that it should not be included in the page? 9 people have died. That's pretty notable to me. --68.60.67.149 (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, mass murders are not even national news, any more. Specifics, such as a murders commmitted by a Santa Claus on Christmas Day might be notable, even so, but.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, mass shootings are all too common. The only reason why this one made it to the news is because it was around Christmas and the guys did it during a Christmas family party.
Had it been in the middle of March, I doubt it would have made the news outside that state. FFMG (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand. --68.60.67.149 (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Fix

{{editsemiprotected}} Can someone revert this please, [7]. Also, you may want to take a close look at the user who did it, Wikisports2 (talk · contribs) who is raising some alarm bells, in particular with this, [8], but also because going through their contribs, I've found few edits that weren't reverted right away. Thanks--94.192.72.3 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, enjoy the page ;) Pro66 (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Great, thanks--94.192.72.3 (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Americocentricism

There seem to be a lot of Americans "Policing" this page who don't like anything that isn't yank based. Why was the Chinese "year of the Rat" continually removed? It's something lots of people want to know. Yet the page constantly gets filled up with rubbish about baseball (that hardly anyone outside the USA cares (or even knows) about) or basketball (that hardly anyone outside the USA cares (or even knows) about) or "American football" (that hardly anyone outside the USA cares (or even knows) about), or lots of other purely American stuff.

Half of the "American" actors, actresses, politicians, scientists etc have almost no references outside Wiki yet they stay there. Anything outside the USA gets deleted almost as soon as it's put in.

The whole page (and "Police" force) is FAR too Americocentric. The page is almost a "joke propaganda" for the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.120.42 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 5 January 2009

We're trying to get a template for Chinese calendars. Wrad (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome to remove what you feel does not belong here, but I cannot see any baseball, basketball or American football entries in the article, where are they?
What actors/actresses/scientists/politicians do you think should not be here?
Without any proper references to any of the accusations you are making it is a bit hard to correct it/discuss it. FFMG (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I know. I was just about to ask why it doesn't mention the Chinese Year of the Rat. Is it because Chinese New Year is different from the New Year in the Gregorian Calendar?--69.234.216.56 (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Lunar New Year is listed, and the "Year of the Rat" (in the Chinese zodiac) should be in the year-in-other-calendars template, rather than in the lead of the article... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. We haven't tried to reference this properly but there is a relatively large group of us here right now and we just went through the list of deaths. Using a *quick* Google and paying attention to *major* hits we find the following that, to our minds, don't seem at all noteworthy as none of us have ever heard of them and/or very little turns up on a *quick* Google...........

(note that we don't consider other Wiki articles to be of any relevance whatsoever)

I also give a few counter examples for balance.....

Brad Renfro - he was a nobody. B rated movies. Unknown outside USA in any manner of importance. Gordon B. Hinckley - Mormon, a peculiarly American thing. Almost zero influence or notice taken outside of USA Charlton Heston - Obviously deserves to be here. Bo Diddley - obviously deserves to be here. Mel Ferrer - hardly world class. A load of B movie stuff or minor parts in A movies. Probably unknown outside USA. Certainly nobody here has heard of him/her/it. George Carlin - George Who? The first Google hit is Wiki, then his own website, then youtube. Hardly earth shattering! Tony Snow - everything to do with him is purely American. No influence or importance outside the USA whatsoever. Estelle Getty - a very minor soap actress. The shows appeared in a few minor places (inluding the UK) but were not worldwide or even well received.

I'm just over halfway through the year but I hope you see my gist.

The "Events" section does tend to get cleaned up quite quickly. Pity the same can't be said of the equivalent 2009 page which is full of baseball and hockey games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.120.42 (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you could give examples from other countries too. Incidentally, the Mormon Church has more non-American members than American, so that Hinckley one doesn't really fit your point... Our rule here is they have to have wiki articles in at least ten languages and/or be supported by consensus. If you have an idea for another rule that would work better, be my guest. I like how you've done a Google search, but that can be cursory and we should be careful. Wrad (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree re the Mormon church. On what do you base that statement? Because Mormons claim so? They claim many things. The orignal "ancient Eqyptian" text was found buried in America then miraculously dissappeared? Come on! I cannot find *anything* about Mormonism outside the USA.
Now we also have, added to July, the merger of two solely American radio stations! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.120.42 (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have some personal opinions about the Mormon Church. The Mormons have had more members outside the US than inside since at least 2001. See [9]. They have about a dozen temples in Mexico, A dozen more in South America. Three in Japan, one in Korea, one in China, Three (at least) in Australia. One each in Tonga and Fiji. Another dozen or so in Europe. And about three in Africa. Each of these temples represents a large conglomeration of members living in the area which support it. If you think they're lying about their numbers, then I can't help you there, except to say that most news sources take them at their word when it comes to statistics.
Radio stations, I must agree, are pretty ridiculous. Wrad (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

the 10-languages rule is obviously problematic. How about a quota-system? Just an idea... 50% anglo, 50% non-anglo should be fair. Within the anglo-part, representation by population, so about 7 times more US than UK. Just a guideline, so occasional outliers can be dealt with. Jasy jatere (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

James Bevel

The removal of James Bevel from the death list (December 19) seems to uncover a hole in the listings-system. Bevel, the strategist and architect of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, called "the Father of Voting Rights", and half of the Bevel/King first-tier team that planned, organized, and ran the movement, obviously deserves a spot in the death listings of the year he passed. His prominence in American and world history compares with the likes of Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, and Washington. Because his work has found underreporting in both his home country and in other countries, he has not received the now-required number of languages to qualify for this list.

This can be taken as a formal request to make an exemption in Bevel's case, or to review the policy as regards to such major personages who fall into a rare but real category: Historically major figures not well known. Bevel would, IMHO, lead this list. As a Civil Rights historian who has worked on researching and writing about his historic contributions since 1983, I've felt very much like Jeff Clark at Maverick's. But neither Bevel nor Maverick's deserve removal from Wikipedia, no matter how unknown or how incredible-seeming their existence.

I don't know the proper channels to go through, so I'll add Bevel's name once more and see if discussion can become generated. Thanks, Randy Kryn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Kryn (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I am not sure I follow why he should be listed in the international page, no doubt, he probably deserves to be listed in 2008 in the United States, but outside the US he was mostly unknown. If I understand correctly, he was
  • Architect of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, (in the US).
  • called "the Father of Voting Rights", (again, only in the US).
Both those events had little or no impact on the rest of the world, for example what did he do for South Africa during the apartheid?
You also mention under-reporting, but I doubt that listing him here will help in that regard.
If editors around the world don't know him well enough to create an article in their respective languages, then maybe he is not notable enough outside the US. I don't think he should be listed because he was a great activist in on country. FFMG (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Both of those events had little or no impact on the rest of the world"--the 1960s Civil Rights Movement and the Voting Rights Movement? The worldwide women's movement; the focus on the situation in South Africa which suddenly seemed archaic; the freedom movement for Australian aborigines; the emerging gay movement; the spread of the success of the tactics of nonviolence--used in Eastern Europe in the mid-to-late 1980s; the first successful uses of Mohandas Gandhi's techniques outside of India; these and many more events and emerging freedoms came almost directly from the successes that James Bevel and Dr. King (on the first-tier of their movement) accomplished. The Mississippi and Selma Voting Rights Movements--other Bevel creations--bore their freshest fruit in November of last year when Barack Obama became America's first Afro-American presidednt, an event attributed by many historians and commentators to the Selma Voting Rights Movement of 1965. Obama's impact on the rest of the world flows across the planet daily. Thank you for your comments, and I ask anyone who knows how to do so to pass along my request for an exemption for the inclusion of James Bevel in this article. (I did take your advice and listed him in 2008 in the United States. Thank you) Randy Kryn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Kryn (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

None of the events you have listed seem to have anything to do with him,
  • The voting right movement was in Mississippi, not international.
  • What "worldwide women's movement" are you referring to? how was he involved?
  • Where/when was he involved with aborigines?
  • What do you mean, "...the focus on the situation in South Africa which suddenly seemed archaic;"?, When was he ever involved with South Africa?
  • From what I can see, the closest he ever was to Gandhi was by ready his book when he was younger, he certainly was not the first to use any of his techniques.
  • Even if he remotely had anything to do with Obama, (and I really fail to see the link), this is still a US mater, not international.
  • And, ..."Obama's impact on the rest of the world flows across the planet daily.", really??
Even the English article about him does not mention any of the events you are trying to attribute to him. He was just an activist in the US with little or not international impact. Either that or even the English article about him is out of date. FFMG (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To FFMG. My answer to you concerned your comment that the 1960s Civil Rights Movement and the U.S. Voting Rights Movement "had little impact on the rest of the world". My point: the application and success of the CRMovement in the U.S. inspired people worldwide to work within nonviolence for their own rights. The tactics used by Gandhi, and brought forward in the U.S. by mainly Dr. King and James Bevel (the first replication of Gandhi's use of nonviolence as well as a practical in-the-field adding to his findings of "why and how nonviolence works"), found use within the other events I mentioned. It may seem now as if all of these events occurred separate from each other and without a link, but look at the timeline and the writings of the major personalities in each of them, and the importance of the '60s Civil Rights Movement becomes clear. The main Voting Rights Movement occurred in Selma, Alabama, in 1965--a movement which built of the Alabama Project started in 1963 by Bevel and his wife at the time, Diane Nash--and has grown in influence yearly if not daily, both in the U.S. and worldwide. In any case, I wrote the comment to you to point out the very large international impact of the movements in which Bevel and King played the key roles, and not to infer that Bevel had an active role to play in the further activities. (A couple of quick replies: Bevel did become the first to use Gandhi's techniques after Gandhi's death in order to gain major social change; although Bevel did know Obama, the link to I referred to concerns the success of the Selma Voting Rights Movement which even Obama says emerged as a critical step to his eventual election). Randy Kryn, July 2, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Kryn (talk • contribs) 23:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I still don't see how he was internationally involved. Even in the US, (_from what I can tell_), he seem to have had little or no impact, (apart for 2 marches in the 60s and been one of Kings counsel). Of course, he was an activist in his community, but just not an international activist.
I see no references to justify any of the, somewhat inflated, claims that he had such an impact, (on a daily basis), in the international community.
I also cannot find any link between him using any of Gandhi's tactics, let alone been the first one to do so. And even if he did, I fail to see how that would make him an international icon. And finally the fact that he might have known King and/or Obama is nothing more than anecdotal and does not make him an international figure in any way.
And, your statement "...in the U.S. inspired people worldwide to work within nonviolence for their own rights." is also not true at all an over simplifies the entire movement to give credit to the US. But that's another discussion altogether.
I think that this discussion should be on his talk page rather than here, like I said earlier, most of the comments you added here are not even on his English article and simply cannot be verified.
So personally I cannot see why we should change the rule for him, he had no international impact, and that's probably the reason why there are so few non-English articles. FFMG (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Two marches in the '60s", OK, I'll try again, and not including Bevel really does show a major hole in the system. James Bevel, as Director of Direct Action and Director of Nonviolent Education of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference: Initiated, planned, organized and directed the 1963 Birmingham Children's Crusade; initiated, planned, organized, and directed the 1965 Selma Voting Rights Movement; directed, planned, and organized the 1966 Chicago Open Housing Movement; initiated and planned the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery; called the 1963 March on Washington; directed, planned, and organized the 1961 Open Theater Movement; initiated, planned, and directed the initial Mississippi Voting Rights Movement; the 1967 Director of the National Mobilization to End the War In Vietnam; and co-initiated the 1995 Day of Antonement/Million Man March. You say "he might have known King?" Not only did he not act as Dr. King's aide, etc., but they acted on an equal footing via their 1962 agreement. This discussion could go elsewhere, but the point of it here regards his ommission from the death-list of the year in accordance with a new policy (who created the policy?). Bevel being constantly removed does show a huge hole in the policy, and deserves comment from more than the two of us. So again I ask for others to comment, and for an exemption to whatever rule this policy belongs to. Randy Kryn, July 6, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Kryn (talk • contribs) 22:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see support for inclusion other than by you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Director of Direct Action.[citation needed]
  • Director of Nonviolent Education of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.[citation needed]
  • Initiated, planned, organized and directed the 1963 Birmingham Children's Crusade.[citation needed]
  • initiated, planned, organized, and directed the 1965 Selma Voting Rights Movement.[citation needed]
  • directed, planned, and organized the 1966 Chicago Open Housing Movement.[citation needed]
  • initiated and planned the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery.[citation needed]
  • called the 1963 March on Washington.[citation needed]
  • directed, planned, and organized the 1961 Open Theater Movement.[citation needed]
  • initiated, planned, and directed the initial Mississippi Voting Rights Movement.[citation needed]
  • the 1967 Director of the National Mobilization to End the War In Vietnam and co-initiated the 1995 Day of Antonement/Million Man March.[citation needed]
  • Not only did he not act as Dr. King's aide, etc., but they acted on an equal footing via their 1962 agreement.[citation needed]
If any of those claim are true then he was involved in the US, not internationally. So it is only right that he'd be listed in 2008 in the United States and not here. This also would explain why there are little or no non-english article about this man as he was unknown outside the US.
I don't know how else to explain it.
For the record, none of the facts you give can be verified, you might want to actually update his article, would that not be a better use of your resources? To improve his article? FFMG (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A normal condition (see my first comment, regarding feeling like Jeff Clark at Mavericks), but James Bevel's contributions still exist as second to none in American history (where the 1960s Civil Rights Movement often gets called the Second American Revolution). If his death date cannot remain listed among the significant deaths of the year then, it seems to me, there remains a problem in the listings system and not in the attempt to list. I'll refrain from listing for now, but ask anyone else, especially those with a sense of history, to, as Jeff Clark said for 15 years, "Come on in, the water's fine." Randy KrynRandy Kryn (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC) 7 July, 2009

He is listed in 2008 in the United States, where he had some kind of impact, (I guess), but he is not listed in 2008 as he had no international impact.
This article is for international personalities, not national ones. FFMG (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Putting Bevel's death back into article. For anyone, especially people who work on wikipedia articles, to argue that the 1960s Civil Rights Movement only had national importance and not an immediate, ongoing, and expanding international one, does surprise me. As nice as I could put it without offense, and I hope none taken. And how do I find the number of international articles (you say someone needs a minimum number for consideration on the list)? Randy Kryn, August 9, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Kryn (talk • contribs) 23:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Bevel is virtually unknown outside the United States; he had no impact in any other country in the world. As such, he is nowhere near eligible enough to be included on this article. Even if he were the most important, famous, popular, influential activist in America (which he wasn't); he would still not be eligible. You can't honestly claim he was relevant to Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Brazil, Russia etc. Information yes (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

During the 1960s Civil Rights Movement Bevel was the co-most important and influential along with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. If King would find inclusion in such a list, then Bevel would as well. The international influence of their movement was reflected in freedoms and movements organized in various countries for women's, gay, and other rights, and without their '60s movement in the U.S. the Eastern European non-violence during the 1980s, as various countries freed themselves from U.S.S.R. influence, may have emerged as violent attempts. Randy Kryn, August 12, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Kryn (talk • contribs) 19:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length already, he was not co-most important, he was not co-anything, he knew Mr King and did one or two things with him, (all in the US and not even in most states).
You claims of international influences is far, far from true. You have no references of such claims because they are simply not true.
Trying to give credit to the US civil right movement for just about everything that has happened around the world since then is baffling.
That you somehow believe that what happened in one country had such an impact on so many other countries makes of mockery of the thousands that died, (and are still dying), to free themselves from opression. FFMG (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if he was that influential in the US (which he never was), there is still the fact that he had no effect on anything abroad. The successful fight against communist dictatorships by people in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was completely detached from, and different to, what happened in the United States. The US has never had a communist regime; the issues / regimes / process was completely different and there was no co-ordination between what happened to dismantle communism to what Bevel did, thousands of miles away, in the US. The fact that there is only one foreign language article (Dutch) proves that he had no influence on E Europe; if he had, he would have articles in Russian, Polish, Hungarian, Czech, Romanian etc. - he doesn't. Bevel is virtually unknown outside the US, because he had no effect on anything outside his own country. Information yes (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll comment here, and then "cool my jets" on this topic for awhile. Bottom-line, if you would have included Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in this list upon his death, then James Bevel should assuredly also find inclusion. Bevel and King created a two-person agreement in 1962 which shaped the 1960s Civil Rights Movement and brought it multiple and worldwide reported successes. Bevel and King, co-equals in that movement. And I said the Eastern European movements "may have emerged as violent" if the CRM did not exist, because I recall many organizers of those actions saying that their movement stayed nonviolent because of the lessons of Gandhi's and "King's" movements. To conclude for now, the Bevel/King team was real, although vastly underreported in the U.S. and elsewhere (as you've made clear), and it did change the world, not just the U.S. I've enjoyed this discussion, and will find my way back here someday. Randy Kryn, August 13, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Kryn (talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If there really was a two person agreement in which King and Bevel were equals, or Bevel was some kind of deputy to King, then find a reliable source that says so and add it to Bevel's article. King's name is known the world over, yet the vast majority of people outside the US have never heard of Bevel. If Bevel really was as important as you claim, submit some proof to back that up. Violence was used both by communists and those fighting against it in Eastern Europe, such as that used to remove Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu. Your claim that Bevel, or the US 1960s CRM in general, prevented there being any violence in overthrowing communism is therefore false. If what happened in the 1960s had so much effect on E Europe, the why did it take until the late 1980s before communist regimes there were dismantled. What happened in the 60s in the US did not affect the lives of the people of the Soviet Union and the many E European countries that were living under communist regimes and who did not have the free access to the media sources that Americans had. The communist regimes prevented their citizens finding out the truth about what was really going on in their own countries, let alone what was happening in the free world. It wasn't until the communist regimes were removed that the general populations of those countries were able to find out the truth about current and historical events. How could the communist-ruled people of the Soviet Union and E Europe be influenced by something that was totally different to what they were enduring, and which they did not even know about? Information yes (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe an ironclad argument for Bevel's inclusion in 2008 deaths: The Bevel/King team was arguably (and quite easily argued) the top tier of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. The successes of those years and those movements would probably not have occurred without their 1962 agreement and subsequent working relationship. Martin Luther King Jr. has articles on Wikipedia in 89 languages. 89! James Bevel has articles in two languages. Yet, the two being equal in their chosen field of endeavor, and with Bevel not yet getting widespread and appropriate credit for his work--credit he never sought but accepted when it came his way--shouldn't Wikipedia at least acknowledge the data, and allow James Bevel to be listed among the prominent world deaths of 2008? Randy Kryn, September 13, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Kryn (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Show some evidence to back up your claim that 'King and Bevel were equal in their field'. If that really were the case, why has King been world-famous for decades, yet the vast majority of people have never heard of Bevel? If he had relevance abroad he would have more articles; notice the massive difference between the length of Bevel's article (which would be even shorter if not for what he did to his underage daughters) and King's article. Information yes (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on 2008. 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 00:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on 2008. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Barack Obama

hum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.215.162 (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So why include this one? Jim Michael (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Harvey Korman

15 other Wikipedias at creation of Wikidata, but only 2 at death. Recently added to deaths. Include? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

What international notability did he have? Jim Michael (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2008. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2008. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2008. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008/Archive_3&oldid=1079512187"