Talk:2010

Lionel Jeffries

I would like to request that we keep Lionel Jeffries in the "deaths" section. The reason why is because of the fact that he acted in many films throughout British history, including Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and directed some very popular films in British culture, such as The Railway Children. I am pretty sure many people have watched these films. I think that all of this is enough to get him a place on this list. Grieferhate (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he's notable enough to warrant overriding the 9-article requirement in WP:RY. However, this is the correct place to bring it up, so we can wait for further comments from other editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately British history and culture is not the same as international history and culture. Lionel Jeffries is undoubtedly well known in the UK and some other Commonwealth countries (such as NZ) but the same can be said for a number of soap stars who have also been excluded. As with TV personalities who were extremely well known in the US (Ed McMahon, Billy Mays etc) but who do not meet the WP:RY criteria this suggests that they are in fact not sufficiently notable internationally for inclusion here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the "unfortunately" about in that statement? If your desire is to tell someone, we cannot do this *because* British history and culture is not the same as international history and culture, then all well and good. Surely whether it is unfortunate or not that that is not the case is very much a matter of opinion so not exactly a compelling argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.65.143 (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The unfortunate refers to the opinion of the user who thinks that being important in British culture is sufficient for this article. In other words "Unfortunately 'for you' while you may be correct with regards to Lionel Jeffries' importance to British culture that is not sufficient for inclusion in this article as this article requires international notability as per the guidelines at WP:RY." DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

GM Volt Release

Is this truly notable enough on a world perspective - the release of a hybrid car in US only (initially) years after the Prius (the market dominator and undeniable paradigm shifter)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oosh (talk • contribs) 04:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you and I removed it, this is not the first hybrid car, (by far), and as far as we know there is nothing really technologically revolutionary in their design so it is not exactly news worthy.

We cannot start listing everything, (such as the Apple iPad for example), every time some corporation releases it. FFMG (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Vladislav Ardzinba

Per WP:DUE, I would suggest changing "1st President of Abkhazia" to something like "Soviet-born politician". Although the Vladislav Ardzinba article does call him the "1st President of Abkhazia", the Abkhazia page points out that the overwhelming majority of nations do not even recognize Abkhazia as an independent state. Therefore, most of the world would not consider "President of Abkhazia" to be an existing position. But, seeing as Ardzinba's article (oddly) recognizes this WP:FRINGE title, I figured I should make the suggestion on talk before actually changing anything. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If only a handful of countries recognize Abkhazia the nhe should probably not be listed as its president. Unless someone can think of a better description I think we should go with "Soviet-born politician". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue of international recognition of Abkhazian independence is not related to the fact that Ardzinba served as President of Abkhazia. There is a President of Taiwan and a President of Kosovo and a President of Western Sahara too, even though those territories are largely unrecognized. --Tocino 20:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Of all the disputed areas you mentioned, all--except for Abkhazia--seem to be recognized as independent states by at least a significant minority of established nations. I count a mere four countries (plus three additional disputed regions) that recognize Abkhazia as a sovereign state (and therefore as capable of being headed by a president). If I were to declare myself The King of Town, and even if the town affirmed my declaration, my "position" would remain internationally invalid (in other words, the position would not be internationally notable, even if I--on account of my eccentricity, perhaps--became an internationally recognizable figure, and therefore came to merit recognition as some breed of "American-born politician"). Being legitimated by only four established nations, the position, "President of Abkhazia" seems to be only a step or two ahead of "The King of Town". Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

To put it from a slightly different angle, Ardzinba should not be listed as "President of Abkhazia", for much the same reason that Sun Myung Moon should not be introduced as the "Second Coming of Christ". Although this isn't exactly comparing apples to apples, the basic fact remains: In both cases, the associated title is considered invalid by the vast majority of the relevant population. In other words, both labels, if presented as objective fact, carry WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. In fact, Moon actually has a slight advantage here, because a significant portion of the population regards the Second Coming of Christ, in and of itself, as a valid concept. But most do not consider Abkhazia to be a place that can be served by a president (other than, at the moment, Mikheil Saakashvili, who is internationally regarded as the only president of Abkhazia--along with the rest of Georgia) in the first place. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The bottomline is that Abkhazia is still in the same boat as the aforementioned disputed regions. None of them are considered by the UN to be sovereign nations and therefore they are not true members of the international community, despite their de facto status as independent states. The amount of recognitions means little. It's like comparing which deformed penis is the largest. Also, Abkhazia is much different from your strawman. It has a history, culture, and language that is unique from Georgia and Abkhazian independence is not an illusion, it is very real. --Tocino 20:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Something is very real over there, that's for sure. But, regardless of where anybody's sympathies lie, the bottom line actually is policy: "In general ... the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth should not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority." "The amount of recognitions", then, would seem to mean everything (would it not?) in an article like this one, where space is especially prohibitive. If entire articles end up lending undue credence to widely unsupported viewpoints merely by mentioning those viewpoints, then a single entry in a deaths list plainly has no wiggle room. So I would think that, as far as WP:DUE is concerned with respect to lists, "Vladislav Ardzinba, 1st President of Abkhazia" and "Earth, a flat disc" actually are in the same boat: Most of the world would not consider either entry to be conceptually valid. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me...

Like this page has some serious ownership issues, as in the WP:Years or a particular group of editors are taking it upon themsevles to constantly police this article, and also using personal discretion to determine what should and shouldn't be included on this page. I commend you for your efforts to keep this article how you want it. Now stop. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't use discretion? A certain group of editors has had continual interest in this article and in others like it, and in the guideline that helps to structure these pages and to prevent them from becoming a free-for-all. If trying to maintain some sort of order amounts to "policing", then so be it. But guess what? You're welcome to join the force! If you don't like the consensus that a certain group of editors has reached, then state your case and see if you can change the consensus through reasoned arguments. Don't just launch vague attacks on editors. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree to an extent with Kuzwa. The arbitrary rules we've come up with are sometimes overzealously enforced, which can scare newcomers. --Tocino 20:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Quakes

How about using this photo that shows Haiti and Chile?

File:2010 Haiti Chile.jpg Juowikis (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

deaf & blind this march

It seems wikipedians are deaf & blind to all the news this march, why cant there be more added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanmullen09 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a NEWS article, it is for notable international events. The criteria for inclusion are at WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to echoing what Derby said, I would add that calling us "deaf & blind" to some nameless plethora of information does not provide us with a whole lot of...well, information. If we're missing something, then tell us what we're missing. Don't just tell us that we're missing something: Merely telling someone that they're in the dark is not going to make them see the light. It's true that "all the news" could turn out to be a whole lot of nothing in terms of encyclopedic content. But, Dean, if you know of some event that seems to pass WP:RY, then please feel free to enlighten us. Better yet, be a part of "us" by contributing in a more collaborative spirit. Be WP:BOLD and edit the article yourself. Just be aware that, if you want to make an edit that is not consistent with WP:RY, you'll need to obtain consensus that the edit is a valid exception to the rules. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible inclusion of Icelandic volanic eruption in "March events"

Any comments? --AycliffeAngel (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The only comment I can think of is that you haven't really said enough for me to comment on. Why do you think that this should (or shouldn't--you haven't really said either way) be included? Does the eruption have its own article? Is there something particularly notable or unusual about it? Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Fess Parker

What about Fess Parker (died March 18, 2010),I would think he was as notable as Peter Graves. See Davy Crockett (TV series) & Daniel Boone (TV series). Have to admit a COI, I spent a lot of time expanding his article post mortem. I'll go with the consensus. Comments please?. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think he is more deserving of notability than for example Corey Haim, however his article is still some way short of meeting the minimum WP:RY criteria. I'd like to see him included (or a few others excluded) but can't think of a good enough reason. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Health Care Reform

I added the President signing health care reform into law. For Americans, regardless of your political party affiliation, this is a momentous achievement. Hopefully there will be no doubts to the merits of the inclusion as I know as an American that this issue is very touchy. The criteria for adding events in years pages are below.

• Three-continent rule--check, added refs from BBC, Al Jazeera and the Washington Post

• Legislation--check, the US was the last holdout of industrialized nations without wide-ranging insurance practices reforms and laws aimed at insuring most citizens

Please discuss here before deleting. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a domestic item that belongs in 2010 in the US, not here. There is nothing international in nature about this event. This has been removed numerous times for not fitting the criteria in WP:RY.

Since this has been removed numerous times by various editors - this is in itself a form of concensus - I will be removing this again. If this discussion comes to a consensus that it should be added, then it can then be added back in. ttonyb (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

New Deal acts, the Social Security Act, Medicare were all significant pieces of legislation that were added to various years pages. Health care reform today sought to insure 32 million more Americans--the rest. This legislation has been cited as being the most significant since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Medicare Act.

You cite a consensus that this shouldn't be added. Where is it? I can tell you exactly why HCR isn't on this page and it is because people don't agree with it. If you're an American you know that, and everyone who formed the "consensus" knows that. Should we also delete United States Presidential Election, 2008 because some people don't like President Obama? GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

New Deal acts, the Social Security Act, Medicare are important and should be added to the year in the US; however, if they exist in the general year, it does not mean they should be there. The insurance of 32 million Americans is important and should be added to the 2010 in the United States article. I strongly disagree with your comment that the HCR is has not been added to this article because of some sort of censorship, in fact I take umbrage with your statement implying that I and other editors are censoring Wikipedia. Any bias, either for or against, should not factor in to the decision to add it to or delete it from the article. As far as I can tell, there has been no bias associated with the decision to remove the event from the article. ttonyb (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Personally, as an American and a staunch supporter of universal health care, I'm absolutely delighted that the bill has passed. Editorially, however, I see no reason whatsoever to include it on this article. The article is about a year that belongs equally to all nations that happen to be whipping around the Sun for the 2010th time since... well, 2010 years ago. Accordingly, the article functions to document 2010 as an internationally, globally notable span of time. And the fact of the matter is, as far as reasonable health care coverage is concerned, the rest of the (industrialized) globe beat us to it--before 2010. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not an international event of 2010; it is a domestic catching-up with an international series of events which predated 2010. It is a great thing (IMHO), and it is perfectly suitable for mention in the 2010 in the United States article. But probably not on the general 2010 page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with others here, this is not international news, I am not sure why the international media is covering it with so much interest, it has zero impact on the rest of the world. I guess news are a bit slow lately. FFMG (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Exclude. Domestic. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody in the world is doubting that it belongs in the US article. The New Deal Acts, et al had near zero effect on the rest of the world. I'm uninterested in a crusade for health care to be noted on this page, what I am interested in, however, is consistency. I think it is something we should all want. If the New Deal Acts, et al, had no effect on the rest of the world those entries should be deleted as should all nations' pieces of legislation listed in the years pages. To Tony, please don't take a personal offense to the accusation. I was merely noting the existence of political bias on Wikipedia. We all know it's here... that it's alive and well. I agree that no bias should be included in decision-making, but again, it's a reality, and I would not doubt if any decision-making in re HCR has been biased motivated. Remember, editors here are people, and most have a political party affiliation. I spoke with an Administrator earlier who echoed the same thinking. Recap: do we agree that America-centric legislation that affects only Americans should be deleted from years entries? GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Earlier year articles are full of domestic events from many countries, US entries are just the most prevalent. Ideally those events (and births and deaths) should be moved to the appropriate Year in Country article. Unfortunately many countries lack year articles or even timelines. In any case cleaning up even a single year is very time consuming. If anyone wants to go through a couple of hundred year articles moving and removing all the domestic legislation be my guest! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 Moscow Metro bombings

This is a domestic event which is not uncommon in Russia, it just hasn't happened for a while. I don't think it should be included. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think due to the large loss of life and the condemnation of the attacks by many nations it deserves recognition. Who are we to decided what people in the future will want to know? --AycliffeAngel (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes a "large" loss of life? Hundreds of people died in the March 2010 Jos riots but that has not been included. International condemnation of such attacks is standard for countries that do not experience them on a regular basis, this does not really make any more notable. And the purpose of this talk page, as well as the agreed guidelines at WP:RY, is to establish what is sufficiently notable for inclusion NOW. Many incidents that achieve widespread news coverage become considerably less memorable (in an international sense) in a relatively short space of time, that is why WP:NEWS is kept distinct from articles such as this. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks domestic to me as well. I've tightened the entry a bit, but I don't see any real reason to keep it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Also look like a domestic event to me, sadly, (otherwise the 2010 Jos riots, and maybe others, should be included). FFMG (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are saying this was a domestic event wouldnt the Haiti and Chile earthquakes be considered a domestic events as well. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not even a fair comparison to begin with. The Haiti earthquake destroyed a nation's entire capital city and was the fourth-deadliest earthquake ever; the Chile earthquake was one of the most powerful in recorded history. Those two suicide bombers did not destroy the entire city of Moscow, and they did not commit one of the worst acts of violence on record. There's a far greater chance (isn't there?) of history remembering those two earthquakes than remembering a relatively small terrorist attack in a time and place where such attacks are not entirely unusual. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

this needs to be expanded

This simply must be expanded, the pictures are too close, and the months news are too small, look at the other years like 2008 and/or 2009 each month has a dozen or even more news statements per month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanmullen09 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Being "too small" is not an excuse to add events. Months and years don't have to have a minimum number of events. Previous years may include events which are not really sufficiently notable to be included (prior to 2008 this is almost certain). If too many pictures disrupt the article then it would be better to reduce the number of pictures. As we're only one third of the way through the year it might be better to wait until closer to the end of the year to discuss the "look" of the article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

so-called notable

I dunno why the Baengnyeong incident and the Moscow one were considered "non-notable events" by someone. I dunno what's the situation in "your side" of the globe, but as a guy who lives in this side of the globe, I can assure you that these were big international headlines here. Qrfqr (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Moscow frequently has bombings, and you didn't describe why the Baengnyeong incident might be notable in the entry. If the article is accurate, it might be notable, but perhaps not notable for this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Alright, sorry for not having read the discussion beforehand. Now I know that "being domestic" is a reason for an event not to be listed here, no matter how influential it is or will be. So Hitler's ascendency to power in 1933 would not have been notable since it was domestic. I am very sorry for this kind of shortsighted criteria and the time I spent on this article. Don't wanna even have an argue. Just go ahead and delete whatever you want. Qrfqr (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the Moscow bombing was discussed at #2010 Moscow Metro bombings above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think that it is a manifestation of ignorance, arrogance, and egocentricity to demand someone to give a reason to list an event as notable in one place but not in other places. Qrfqr (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion of WP:RY (for over 6 months) and of WP:YEARS; we can't list every event, or even every event which has it's own Wikipedia article, as the article would be too long to be usable. "International notability" (with, as a minimum, being reported in news on 3 continents) was the minimal requirement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually the Baengnyeong incident was reported by media in Asia, CNN, and at least a newspaper in Europe. So was the news of Moscow. But I dont even bother to GIVE any "evidence" as this requirement is really laughable. Maybe some people just think that events happened in some "important (or central) part" of the globe are automatically licenced to be "notable" while those happened in somewhere else need careful evidence and proof. "Being uncommon" is another ridiculous criterion. What is common and what is not? Dont wanna mention the name of the countries, but famines were not uncommon there. So should the editors here TOTALLY IGNORE any news about food crisis there? Or how many people died would be the criterion for such an event to be listed here? I can understand that there are some conditions in order to keep this page manageable, but I really cant understand how these laughable criteria could have been introduced here. Qrfqr (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to point out that the Avtozavodskaya and Rizhskaya bombings were being pointed out in the 2004 article. I vote for putting it in. Zelderu Maryoto (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:RY was first applied starting with the years 2008 and 2009, and was not as agressively applied to years back to 2000, even though it now applies there. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why this isn't a good reason for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Anyone know how to get this done? We could do with at least a few weeks without timewasting vandalism! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this needs semi-protection bad, as this is a highly-visible page because this is an article of the current year. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 23:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene Terre'Blanche

Eugene Terre'Blanche was killed on the 3rd of April and does have enough articles and seem to me making some international headlines [1][2] (as of the 4th of April), but I am on the fence about adding him here.
Maybe someone from outside South Africa has an opinion on adding him or not. FFMG (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would add him due to his current page on wikipedia suggesting some notability. I think we may need a third opinion.--AycliffeAngel (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)