Talk:2010

Prime Minister Julia Gillard

Julia Gillard is the first female prime minister of Australia, there is no reason why that should not be mentioned as she is now world-known. According to Forbes 2010, she ranks in the top 100 most powerful women (in general) [1].

Other Prime Minister's/ Presidents mentioned (elections/resignations/sworn in etc.) in the years articles:

1999

• November 27 – The left-wing Labour Party takes control of the New Zealand government, with leader Helen Clark becoming the second female Prime Minister in New Zealand's history.

2000

• February 6 – Tarja Halonen is elected the first female president of Finland.
• February 7 – Stipe Mesic is elected president of Croatia.
• March 26 – Vladimir Putin is elected President of Russia.
• July 30 – Venezuela's president Hugo Chávez is reelected with 59% of the vote.
• November 7 – Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected to the United States Senate, becoming the first First Lady of the United States to win public office.
• November 27 – Jean Chrétien is re-elected as Prime Minister of Canada, as the Liberal Party increases its majority in the House of Commons.

2001

• November 10 – Australian Prime Minister John Howard is elected to a third term.

2002

• May 5 – In the second round of the French presidential election, Jacques Chirac is reelected.
• July 27 – Helen Clark, leader of the New Zealand Labour Party, is re-elected in a landslide victory.
• October 27 – Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is elected President of Brazil.
• December 12 – Hans Enoksen is elected prime minister of Greenland

2004

• March 21 – Salvadoran presidential election, 2004: Antonio Saca is elected President of El Salvador (inaugurated June 1).
• May 10 – Philippine general election, 2004: Incumbent president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is elected for 6-year term.
• October 20 – Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono becomes the first directly elected President of Indonesia.
• October 31 – Leftist candidate Tabaré Vázquez is elected President of Uruguay.

2005

• January 9 – Mahmoud Abbas is elected to succeed Yasser Arafat as Palestinian Authority President.

2007

• May 6 – French Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy wins the French presidential election, succeeding incumbent President Jacques Chirac 10 days later.

2008

• April 17 – Raila Odinga becomes the new Prime Minister of Kenya after the formation of a coalition government, ending the political crisis in Kenya.
• August 15 – Pushpa Kamal Dahal (known as Prachanda) is sworn in as the first Prime Minister of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, after the Nepalese monarchy was abolished in May.
• September 2 – Prime Minister of Japan Yasuo Fukuda resigns, less than a year after taking office following Shinzo Abe's resignation.
• September 15 – Following negotiations, President Robert Mugabe and opposition leaders Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara sign a power-sharing deal, making Tsvangirai the new Prime Minister of Zimbabwe.
• September 24 – The Diet of Japan elects Taro Aso as the new Prime Minister of Japan
• February 19 – Fidel Castro announces his resignation as President of Cuba, effective February 24
• February 24 – Raúl Castro is unanimously elected as President of Cuba by the National Assembly
• March 29 – Presidential and parliamentary elections are held in Zimbabwe.
• September 6 – Asif Ali Zardari is elected President of Pakistan by the Electoral College of Pakistan
• September 21 – President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa resigns after accepting a call by the African National Congress
• September 25 – Kgalema Motlanthe is elected by the National Assembly of South Africa as the President of South Africa, succeeding Thabo Mbeki
• November 4 – United States presidential election, 2008: Barack Obama is elected the 44th President of the United States and Joe Biden is elected the 47th Vice President. *Barack Obama becomes the first African-American to be elected to the office

2009

• January 20 – Barack Obama is inaugurated as the 44th, and first African American, President of the United States.

......and so on.....

For particular reasons (some mentioned below in italics), editor DerbyCountyinNZ does not believe that there should be this referenced peice of information mentioned in the 2010 article: "June 24 – Julia Gillard is sworn in as the 27th Prime Minister of Australia. She is the first female Prime Minister in Australia's history"

...In the June section of 2010. The Reasons include:

• That was a federal election -- No it wasnt, the last federal election before June 24 was in 2007, and Julia Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd from a leadership ballot conducted in June 2010, therefore becoming Australia's first female Prime Minister.
• "National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country (e.g., a nation's first election)." First women prime minister of Australia. An example from a previous year can include: Helen Clarke (1999 article) who became 2nd female PM in NZ, or Tarja Halonen (2000 article) who became the first female president of Finland.
• Not notable enough -- She just is the 49th most powerful women (in general) rated by Forbes 2010, in a world population of more than 6 billion. And Wiki Project Politics rates her as High Priority "Must have had a large impact in their main discipline, across a couple of generations. Had some impact outside their country of origin."

I would like to hear the People's opinions on this, as well as your reasons. Thank you -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There's ample precedent to include Julia Gillard's installation as Australia's first PM. -danjel (talk to me) 08:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Recent Years guideline was established in the middle of of 2008 to deal with the huge amount of non-notable information that was overloading Year articles. The guideline relating to elections is

National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country (e.g., a nation's first election). Some elections gain international significance for other reasons and this can be demonstrated through several international news sources.

You will notice that only one election from 2009 onwrds has been allowed to stand, and I for one have always disagreed with it's inclusion. Why? Because it's only claim to notability (if you exclude, as I do, that the US is more important than anywhere else) is that Obama is the first Afro-American US president. However interntaionally this is not significant as many other countries have had Afro-American presidents. The same goes for Julia Gillard, being the first woman PM in Australia is not internationally significant because many, many other countries have had woman PMs. As for earlier years:

• 2008: I thought the elections had been removed from that year at the time. I haven't had it on my watch list since mid-2009 so some may have crept back in. Feel free to remove any/all of them if you feel they aren't notable, I don't have time. I notice that 2008 is now back to 100k plus, the size it was in June before the cleanup started, it was <90k at the end of that year.
• 2007: The WP:RY guidelines were not rigorously applied to 2007, most of that established the guidelines were too busy cleaning up 2008 to deal with 2007 as well. It looks like no-one got around to dealing with 2007 properly until December 2009 when the size was reduced 107k to 73k simply by removing non-notable/domestic events. Only one election left? Sarkozy? Easily removed as not particularly significant. The article still contains far too many non-notable Deaths but it's extremely time consuming to check their notability against the guidelines, if someone else wants to have a go, good on them!
• 2006: I for one never even bothered to go back that far. As with 2007 it wasn't cleaned up until much later, May 2010 when it was trimmed from 114k to 60k. Result, no elections.
• 2005: Trimmed in December 2009 from 106k to 58k. Result one election. Not sure if a Palestinian election should be considered different from other elections, but I wouldn't object if someone removes it.
• 2004: Never been seriously trimmed, probably because it never got much above 60k. And it's probably at the limit of what could be considered a "Recent Year" (which I counsider to be a Year that was edited at the time rather than filled in after the fact. 4 elections left, none of which seems sufficiently notable to remain.
• 2003: Consisted of exactly 924 bytes as at 1/1/2003, so not a Recent Year, but looks like some minor cleanup has been carried out. Now 50k. Someone with time on their hands could probably remove more non-notable entries, but not the elections, as there aren't any.
• 2002 and earlier: Clearly not within the scope of WP:RY. Who has time to remove all the non-notable elections from ALL the years prior to 2003? Not me. Could I care less about the the NZ elections being included? Not even slightly. Should they be removed? Absolutely.

In summary: There are far too many elections to include in Recent Year articles. As with many other topics there is a a sub-article for them e.g. Electoral calendar 2010. Exceptional elections can be included. Is the election of a woman PM exceptional? No, there have been dozens worldwide since Sirimavo Bandaranaike was elected PM for Ceylon in 1960. Is the lection of an Afro-American President of the US notable? Only if you're American.

Of course any guideline can be rejected by consensus. In fact a clearly notable Death was included by a persistent individual who canvassed his fellow fans to get someone included who was so notable that no-one even mentioned his death in the Year article concerned until 6 weeks after he died. Perhaps you could try that? Oh, I see you've started. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well how about you remove ALL elections etc., reguardless if its ypur job or not before I add Julia Gillard to 2010, as what your are saying is totally unfair. And last time I checked it wasnt illegal to ask another user to take a read of an article. Oh and just remember I would like your opinion aswell as other Wikipefians opinions as well thank you. Who knows its possible you may have a conflict of interest barring the elections you don't want to be mentioned. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country (e.g., a nation's first election). Some elections gain international significance for other reasons and this can be demonstrated through several international news sources" still included in the years recent changes -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that everyone participating here has this clear in their heads. Gillard did not become (Australia's first female) PM via an election. It happened through her party replacing it's parliamentary leader. The party she leads has since been re-elected, but she did not become PM at an election. HiLo48 (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You will find in the examples above that there have been other PMs and Presidents that have had a change of people in power. In my June section i mentioned she was sworn in as PM not elected. Elected or Sworn in she is still the first female PM in Australias history. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But for how long does the world have to keep noticing "First female..." anythings? HiLo48 (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not female, and Julia Gillard has earned her spot in this article. She is not just any women but a leader of a country. Last time i checked I wasn't the one to first acknowledge a 'first women to be....' in these articles. Someone else did that. If other leaders have been mentioned there is no standard reason why Julia should not be mentioned, reguardless of what some editors opinions be. If they are a keep (other leaders) so will be Julia Gillard...it does not get any simpler than that. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else would like to raise their own opinion, before "June 24 – Julia Gillard is sworn in as the 27th Prime Minister of Australia. She is the first female Prime Minister in Australia's history" is added to the article?, I am patient and I would like people to voice their own opinions, thank you -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you do I will revert it. Again. You have not achieved consensus to include, despite canvassing for support. I have provided clear reasons why it is not notable enough for inclusion. Your argument rests largely on WP:Other stuff exists, which is not only not considered a valid argument but, as I have pointed out, quite clearly I thought, that "other stuff" should not exist. I assume from your reluctance to remove it that leaving it their is an attempt to add weight to your argument. You seem to be implying that I should remove it. Why? What's stopping you from doing that? And as for claim of COI, there are editors I've had the misfortune to have to deal with who would claim that borders on breaching WP:Civil. I'm not sure whether this is a misunderstanding, misuse or deliberate misappliocation of this claim. Frankly it's BS. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, one things for sure, is that your whole attitude towards this is really poor. If I was any other new editor, I would have had no problem with leaving the mess as it is. But trust me, following examples on other articles, when I stay on an article, I am usually dead locked on it until we come up with some sort of an agreement. Until then, please take it into consideration, that I do not plan on moving, as I will not give up on this article, and every time you revert (with no plausible excuse) I'll re-add the information. Also you seem to be removing my edit, when there are hundreds of other edits simmilar, on articles previous to 2010.

also there seems to be a little contradiction happening here: "As I said, 1999, and any year before 2004, does not come under the scope of the WP:RY guidelines...." It is to my understanding, and I am sorry If I mis-undertood, but you said that this removing of the elections etc. started in 2009 with the exception of Barack Obama's Innauguration....but in your own words above, it says that the WP:RY guidelines includes years 2004 and later...So who hasn't been removing these elections from 2004 to now? I mean, I just see around 20 different election related edits throughout 2004-2011... And If you were so unpleased with these election edits, why didnt you remove them? Please dont answer: "Not my job" because, after you reverted my edit on non valid reasons, the job simply dropped in your hands.

Also, I know I havent been a user on Wikipedia for as long as you have, but you may be fammiliar with this interesting article that i found on someones talk page WP:Don't revert due to "no consensus".

-- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Derby, WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL. MelbourneStar asked me to take a look at his line of argument and critique if necessary and I agree with what he said. It seems that you are displaying a fair amount of ownership here, which isn't acceptable.

You haven't addressed MelbourneStar's key arguments which are:

• Precedent, for example Barak Obama's election being the first African American to be elected to the presidency of the US;

I've already said that this shouldn't be included and tried to get it excluded on the grounds that he is not the first Afro-American head of state. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Interest, it's of interest to Australians and to the female half of the planet;

Being of interest to Australians makes it notable in Australia, not the rest of the world. The female half of the planet find it interesting? Can you provide a citation for that? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Fit with Guidelines, you're the only person saying it doesn't fit with WP:RY.

No I'm not. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, does it detract from the article to add? No. It's got more than adequate coverage, being that it's been covered liberally on the Australian continent, and in other major news sources. BBC even includes her installment as PM in their relatively sparse timeline. -danjel (talk to me) 12:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does. The guidelines at [[WP:RY}} were reached in attempt to keep out the huge screeds of internationally non-notable entries that were being added to Recent Year articles. Why should there be an exception? That would just lead to more claims of "that's in why can't this be too" and we're almost back to square one. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted all the elections and political changes listed above except for 3 in 2008. Next. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I hate to have to ask, but did you have consensus to do that? -danjel (talk to me) 06:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not required unless the edit is challenged. After 12 hours none have been. Of course either of you 2 could do that, but as 1 of you asked me to make them that would be rather petty. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(a) We're challenging those edits here. (b) It seems that such changes have been rejected before, as you raised in User_talk:DerbyCountyinNZ#Prime_Minister_Julia_Gillard_on_the_2010_article.. (c) It seems to me that you did it for the sake of a WP:POINT. (d) WP:DRNC. This seems to be a breach of wikiquette.

I've demonstrated notability by pointing to mentions in reliable sources across the planet. There seems to be notability as the google search results I've given above satisfy WP:Notability and WP:Notability_(events) quite amply. I'll ask again if you seriously think that this seriously detracts from the article? You can't honestly say that it does. Ask yourself if your position is because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. -danjel (talk to me) 20:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope we get an answer soon, or I guess Ill have to do some reverting, as well as adding... -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:RY has said they shouldn't be there for some time, but I don't know how "recent" WP:RY applies to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The limit of WP:RY has never been defined. I'd say it covers any years that were edited at the time rather than after the fact. The earliest edits I can find are from November 2001 so I suppose the limit should be 2001/02 although wiki really didn't really get going until 2003/04 so that might be a better cutoff. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that applies (or should apply) only to elections that aren't particularly interesting. I think, from the list above, Prachanda's election as PM of Nepal (i.e., first PM after monarchy dissolved) and Obama's election (first African American President) are interesting enough to include. Gillard's election as first female PM of Australia is also interesting. -danjel (talk to me) 07:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Aaagh. Edit cdonflict! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's try again. Now that I have removed all but 3 of the Election or similar entries we need to consider 2 options:

• One of the arguments that this should be included is that there were many other equally (non-)notable Election type entries since 1999 as listed above. They have now all been removed, as requested, except for 3. If this entry is to be considered equivalent to an Election, as it involves a change of state/government leader, is it as notable as the 3 that remain: The first election of a head of state in a country which recently disestablished it's monarchy (Nepal); the standing down of a dictator of 50 years standing in a country whose dictatorship led to isolation by and from a large proportion of nations worldwide (Cuba); or the internationally discredited election result in a country run by a virtual dictator in which hundreds have been killed and thousands forced out (Zimbabwe)? I don't see how the smooth, if sudden, transition of a party leader who is also the PM is anywhere near as significant as any of those 3.
• Is the fact that this about a country having it's first female leader of government notable? Not any more. There have been a considerable number of female government leaders and elected heads of state in the last 50 years. They are now so common as to be longer notable. They will always make the news because the news reports anything and everything, but that doesn't make them especially notable. And the guidleines at [[WP:RY}} require that any election (or similar) be particularly notable to merit inclusion. This is not sufficently noytable.

So unless/until there is a clear consensus otherwise this proposed entry should not be included. There is no such consensus, yet. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

She is the first female leader, of Australia. Australia has never had a female leader. She is the first prime minister in 90 years to have been born overseas...last prime minister to do that was William Hueghs (PM 1915-1922). Off course there is no consenses with deleting that infomation on those articles, you should have asked. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

She is the first female leader, of Australia. Australia has never had a female leader. She is the first prime minister (of Australia) in 90 years to have been born overseas...all of which makes this notable in Australia, not internationally. As I mentioned above, no I don't need consensus to make a change, "unless it is challenged". 24 hours later and not one has been challenged. All of which is a moot point as WP:Other stuff exists invalidates their existence as an argument for including this entry anyaway. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well news just in, she is notable internationally... -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

I hate to have it come down to a matter of !vote, but there's 2 to 1 for the inclusion and we've waited for a week and a half for further opinions one way or the other.

I'm very worried that you, Derby, acted against consensus and to make a WP:POINT in your removal of the other political points. I think that those decisions should be subject to some review. But I'll leave that aside for other people to deal with. -danjel (talk to me) 00:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

2 to 1 for inclusion? I thought it was fairly clear HiLo48 was against, he has said as much here. My removals are perfectly inline with the guidelines at WP:RY AND seeing as the incorrect use of WP:Other stuff was being used as an argument it was necessary at this time. In fact, as I have pointed out earlier, removing those entries was actually not what I consider effective use of my time on here, I would have had no hesitation in removing them earlier if they had been on my watchlist, as I have done on those Year articles I was watching. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not convinced that being the first female PM makes this a globally notable event. It is, however, made a little more notable by the fact that her arrival in the job was not via a normal election, but only a little more notable because it was all part of the normal Westminster system. Given all the female state Premiers, it really was inevitable that Australia would have a female PM one day. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

^ Tell that to all the other editors that mentioned other female prime ministers/ presidents etc.

...Looks like I wasn't the only one to add them. If 5 or 10 or even 20 editors let PMs/Presidents have mention in the years articlse, why not you? -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As with masny other topics there are many editors who are unaware of the Recent Year Guidelines. How best to make users aware of them is being discussed here. They have also not, yet, been applied to all the articles which might come under the "Recent years" scope. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Derby, your removals are based on an interpretation of WP:RY, not the actual letter of the policy. -danjel (talk to me) 00:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No, my removals are in line with the precise intention of the guidelines: "National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country". The issue here is whether a first female Prime Minisiter represents a significant change. I, and others, don't think it does any more. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"Usually" "Significant change in country" , wonderful words. You and others? well news flash there, Derby, as you can see I am not the first to add a new or first female leader to a years article. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion, like mine, is largely irrelevant. You need to find reliable sources from outside Australia telling us all that it's significant. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Found heaps. Her replacement of Rudd definitely fulfills notability requirements.

Honestly, does it detract from the article to add? No. It's got more than adequate coverage, being that it's been covered liberally on the Australian continent, and in other major news sources. BBC even includes her installment as PM in their relatively sparse timeline. -danjel (talk to me) 12:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

-danjel (talk to me) 01:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I chose my words carefully above. I said you need sources "telling us all that it's significant". Just saying "first female..." doesn't necessarily do that. My perspective here is that for most of my life there was a very obvious barrier to a black person becoming President in America. Any such barrier for women in Australia was always going to be overcome in an evolutionary way. Obama's election was more revolutionary. The irrational campaigns still ongoing against him (birthers, etc) show that. There is no equivalent ongoing against Gillard in Australia. (Just the usual party stuff) HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There are over 200 nations. I think it would just be silly to record the first female leader in every one of those as a notable event. Females have made it. Stop treating their success as something weird. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As an Australian Prime Minister? No they have not, thank you -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• This article isn't about first female prime ministers of any nation, it's about internationally notable events in 2010. Accordingly, we would need sources to show that her appointment is internationally significant in 2010. That's the line we need to take. Rodhullandemu 01:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Internationally significant then. Well how is that determined? Bu one person or by a vote?--Jojhutton (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's open to debate, but as regards "year" articles are concerned, WP:RY is our guideline. Rodhullandemu 01:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu maybe take a look at Danjel's latest point above ^^ where he shows international sources. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I would, if they were properly formatted; but they aren't. I'm not going to make work for myself, when it is up to other people to justify inclusion here. Enthusiast, I may be, but slave I am not. Rodhullandemu 01:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Each of them demonstrates coverage of her taking the PM's office across the planet. The links are clickable, what do you mean by properly formatted? -danjel (talk to me) 05:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Then obviously don't make presumptions or opinions, if you're not willing to do some investigating yourself. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A polite suggestion to you as a relatively new editor is to have a good read of WP:Assume good faith. Wikipedia will be better if we all try to be nice to one another. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

All due respect Hilo48, don't need the advice, I am not really new, been on here for 2mnths+ thats enough for me. You can take what I said above out of context, your discretion. Or you could understand that if someone is going to put their 2 cents into a discussion, they should have evidence to support it. I want to get along with everyone...Obviously sometimes things happen and we cant. I still try my best...but thats all I can do now. Thank you -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude. I question whether it's notable even to Australians, but it doesn't have trans-national significance. I'm not convinced Obama should be allowed in 2008 or 2009, under WP:RY, but I haven't taken the time to remove him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am glad we can all share our different opinions to eachother. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

International Notable reasons to why I will be adding Julia Gillard back into the 2010 article:

• First female Leader of the nation
• First leader to have been born overseas since Billy Hughes (PM 1915-1923)
• 1 of 4 Prime Minister's to have been given the privilege of Adressing the US Congress.
• She challenged her own boss (former) PM Kevin Rudd for leadership, on the night of 23rd of June. She was sworn in as the 27th PM the very next day.
• Her Carbon Tax
• Julian Assange

International Sources:

• Sydeny Morning Herald - "The news that Julia Gillard has become Australia's first female prime minister is making headlines across the world."..."with American news channel CNN broadcasting her maiden speech live."
• BBC News US & Canada
• The Telegraph UK
• The Telegraph UK
• msnbc (US)
• USAtoday
• USAtoday
• CNN
• CNN
• NZ Embassy
• Stuff.co.nz

WP:RY "National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country (e.g., a nation's first election). Some elections gain international significance for other reasons and this can be demonstrated through several international news sources. Regular and ordinary shifts in power within the United Nations and European Union are also not sufficiently notable.Most legislation passed in the year will not qualify unless it is of international significance."

I have demonstrated her significance and have provided International sources...all in one breath. Thank You. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 05:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude While she might be a first in Australia, she is not a first around the world. I also don't think that Australians themselves care that much that she is a women or not, I'd like to believe she was elected for reasons other than her gender.
  

Having said that, I think we should remove a lot of the older entries, I have always maintained that having an entry listing Obama's elections and inauguration was ridiculous.
Because he, and others, are listed in various year articles we will keep getting requests to list other world leaders.
While I agree with the current year policy, (that suggests we should exclude her entry), the fact that we have many leaders listed for been the first black, women, Jewish, tall, blond etc, (or simply for been American), makes it very hard to tell an Australian national why we cannot list their leader.
How can you tell an Australian that we cannot list their leader for been the first woman when we consistently list the American leader for no reason other than their nationality, (and their inauguration that no one outside the US really cares about). FFMG (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In other words, Julia Gillard will remain until Barack Obama and any other leader is removed. Currently there is know valid reason to remove Julia Gillard, as it follows the WP:RY policy. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 07:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And we're are not talking about a national election. June 24 wasnt the National Election. She challenged Kevin Rudd in leadership, and she won. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 07:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by 'in other words', two wrongs don't make a right.

I clearly said she should be excluded, but I also gave my own personal opinion as to why you and others might feel that she shouldn't. FFMG (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In other words = My words before yours...I have added her in according to WP:RY Guidlines and Policy. If you have an issue with that change the policy. If I still am having an issue with this, I will have to take a dive head-first to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, because what you all are suggesting (doing) is keeping some Leaders and excluding others. That is not how this is going to work out -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude – I also do not see either a clear movement to add her or that it is policy per WP:RY. This is a local event that has no international significance. Being the first of something locally is not necessarily internationally significant. Ranking as one of the most powerful women in the world is also not significant nor necessarily notable. Per WP:RY, "That an event is important to an individual editor, or even to a particular society or nation, is insufficient ground for its inclusion." Additionally, WP:RY is a minimum, not a tipping point for inclusion. This is better suited for a "Year in" article. ttonyb (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"To an individual editor..." No just to the 11 million + who voted for her. I have provided all that there is needed to provide. Remove Barack Obama before you remove Gillard, or we will be here till who knows when. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 11:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Barring out the above, I have decided that it is best that I won't continue to add Julia Gillard to the 2010 article, reguardless of what I may think. On the other hand, I will be removing all Prime Ministers/ Presidents from the Years articles. That includes President Barack Obama, just because he is the first African-American President, does not make him any more significant than other world leaders. There are 54 countries located in Africa, they have African Leaders too. He can be added to the 2008 in politics article. Last but not least: Sorry for any inconvenience. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 13:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You are 100% correct regarding Barack Obama, as some of us have been trying to point out since before his election. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You! We have finally come up with an agreement! :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 04:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

2010 Summer Youth Olympics

The 2010 Summer Youth Olympics is significant internationally, it's the first youth olympic games hosted by Singapore. Other sporting events like the world cup are also stated here? — muckysock94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

Only the Olympics (not the Youth Olympics, or Para-Olympics) and World Cup are included in recent year articles, per WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

GFAJ-1

Does the unsupported hype about "arsenic life" really warrant placement as one of the most significant events of 2010? It was surely one of the biggest media circuses, but it wasn't actually important as the claims didn't stand up. NASA's claims about having found a microbe capable of replacing phosphorous with arsenic are widely doubted, e.g. see [2]. Do we want to reward "science by press release"? Fences&Windows 22:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No we shouldn't. If the claims are widely disputed then the notability of the entry disappears and it should be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

April 16, 2011 trim

I will remove some less notable or unsourced events from the list and put them here. Feelfree to discuss. I have rough criteria in mind, but typing them would be too long. Circeus 23:17, April 17, 2011 (UTC) The years are missing from the copied elements.

• July 3 - A tank truck explosion, following to fire in resident area in South Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo. Resulting to death toll of 232 people.
• August 7 - A torrential rain, following to landslide hit in Gansu, China, which kills 1,744 person.

Car crashes

About 70,000 people died in car wrecks between the U.S. and the European Union. Why doesn't this appear in a recap of the year but plane crashes killing a hundred people do? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision#Statistics_in_the_European_Union http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx