Talk:2004/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Predicted and scheduled events"

Is the section header "Predicted and scheduled events" enough to make clear that this is largely speculative (aside from the astronomical phenomena we can be fairly sure about)? Or should there be notations in the list enries themseles noting that Martin could get hit by a bus in the next four months, or Latvia could. --Calieber 16:23, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

Only important worldwide events

Only important worldwide events should be posted here, not things like "Parliament of India session begins" or a "hockey champtionship in New Dehli begins". (Feb. 2004)

Actually, a hockey championship in New Delhi would be big news since it would be unusual to see hockey played in India.
  • Was this field hockey perhaps? In which case, not unusual at all.Average Earthman 19:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have, over the past few days, removed various unimportant events such as the Chicago Transit authoirty raising their bus fares! Only important, world wide events should be listed here. Astrotrain

It was the raising of the bus and el fares.
Similarly, we now have many entries on the plans for U.S. airline routes! Way too trivial for this list. --Minesweeper 05:26, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Americocentric or British-centered? (comment by anon)

-Has anyone noticed how British-centered this page is? Seriously, who cares about university tuition fees in Britain? -Also, genius (and I mean Minesweeper), how do you justify deleting the airline routes and not delete the Grand Theft Auto video game release date? Oh yeah, it's probably 'cause you put it up there in the first place. What I'm saying is neither should have been deleted. Who are you to decide what is too trivial for this list? Few things can be accurately predicted - I know that the addition of Southwest Airlines service to Philadelphia Int'l Airport is much more likely to happen than say, elections in Rwanda on a certain day. Besides, Southwest Airlines in Philadelphia is a very big deal - Philadelphia is the 5th largest city in the U.S. and Southwest Airlines is the 4th largest airlines in the U.S. So I'm putting it back and don't you dare delete it.

First of all, you're complaining about "how British-centered" the page is while adding information that even many people in the U.S. don't care about, much less the rest of the world? Second, where did I say I'm against removing the GTA listing? Third, did you even check who added it to the page before making accusations? Finally, your airline listings will likely be removed when the time comes around because I know I'm not the only one who finds them too trivial to list here. If you're so adamant about including them in Wikipedia, then put them on the pages of Southwest Airlines, Frontier Airlines, etc. --Minesweeper 06:23, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
To Minesweeper: I have no problem with the listings being removed when time comes around because we all know some of the most important events cannot be predicted and there is no reason that the airline routes should stay in Wikipedia's permanent record of 2004. But routes are one thing that can be predicted. Now, I was referring to the British-centricity of the events that happened - not the ones that will occur. There is also heavy Indian-centricity on the obituaries. In fact, it seems many of the Wikipedia articles for these pradesh governors are written right after these people die.
At the time it was added, the debate on the tuition fees and the Hutton report were actually considered severe threats to Blair. As in, if they'd gone badly, he might have been forced out as leader of the Labour party, and hence Prime Minister. I'd consider events that would change the leadership of any of the G7 nations to be newsworthy. Certainly more than who Britney Spears has married...Average Earthman 21:30, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Spalding Gray listed twice in Deaths

Spalding Gray is listed as having died twice, once on January 10 and once on March 7. In the Spalding Gray article, it says that he went missing in January and was found dead on March 7. Is there a better way of listing his death than putting it twice?

Deleted all "non-important" events and deaths

I have deleted all non-important events and deaths. Items should not be posted on the 2004 page unless they relate to real news worthy events. Flight plans at an airport are not news, they are just routine business events that do not merit recording in a general page of the year. There is a large proportion of British events because Britain is a major world power whose events are of worldwide importance. Events relating to more minor powers such as India are not newsworthy on a global basis, although some can be included if it is of interest (such as the purchase of a Russian carrier). Basically only major news events (terrorist attacks, disasters, political scandals/landmarks, election results and the like should be placed here. User:Astrotrain

  • Um. Eurovision Song Contest more important than the European parliamentary elections?Average Earthman 12:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I firmly believe EP elections should stay. Harry Potter or football more important? The European Parliament serves 480 million people this year, and There will be more people voting for the EU parliament than ths US president — Sverdrup 13:52, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I would just like to add that British events affect me about as much as Indian events do. Just because you THINK something isn't important doesn't mean that the rest of us do. Sekicho 14:16, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

It isn't about thinking about whether something is important to you, because very few events directly effect most people. The purpose of pages like this is to list important events that have occured throughout the year. I would say since it is an English page it is likely to be filled with more British and American centred topics than say Chinese, only because it is more likely to be edited from users originating in English speaking nations. I'm sure the corresponsing language pages are centred towards their respective events also. Astrotrain

Rulers of various countries in year entries

Polish Wikipedia (e.g. 2004) has a neat feature of listing heads (presidents, prime ministers, kings, etc.) of countries and international organizations in each year entry (going back to ancient times). Could something similar be done here? Ausir 07:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Great idea! It would be very useful to be able to look up a specific year and see who were "leading" different countries and organisations at that time. --Jhertel 08:02, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But not necessary. There is already a collection of such lists: State leaders by year. It need not be duplicated. And this 2004 page already links to such pages — List of state leaders in 2004, or if you follow the more link, List of international organization leaders in 2004. Ford 12:30, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

I didn't see the "2004 state leaders" link - yes, then it is completely unnecessary. And duplicated information is a Bad Thing, if it can be avoided.--Jhertel 18:30, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

see also

Changing box(delete bullets) as per first part of discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years --(talk to)BozMo 16:52, 16 May 2004 (UTC)


I've tentatively added a navbox template to replace the rather unattractive navigational elements at the top of the page. Dicussion at WikiProject Years. -- Seth Ilys 23:50, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

  • I've removed various events relating to minor sporting events. There is a 2004 in sport page for such things. Also some people are again posting minor events such as protests in New Zealand parliament! Astrotrain
Sigh. There's also a 2004 in politics article. Does that mean you'll be moving all the political stories there? In your opinion, then, what qualifies an event for this page? -- Avaragado 22:47, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Such things as:major world events, important milestones and anniversaries, important political events in a major country (eg USA,UK,France), events about important people eg presidents, prime ministers, royality. Some major sporting events such as Olympics, World Cup etc could be included. Astrotrain
I'm confused by your most recent edits. Why is "Two princes go to their (non-royal) grandmother's funeral" worthy of inclusion but "The whole of Europe votes for its Parliament" not? Why does this not meet your criteria as an important political event? -- Avaragado 17:55, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ronald Reagan's death and funeral resulted in articles on the front pages of the newspapers here (Sydney, Australia) for a full week. Kydd, on the other hand.. the only place I heard of her death was Wikipedia. —Stormie 03:54, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Someone who happened to marry into the nobility and whose daughter was Princess of Wales is not moe famous than a quite-recent two-term President of the United States. That is just simply false. You may probably say that Diana, Princess of Wales was more famous, though I'd say they're comparable. We only need to mention her death once - in the list of deaths section of the article. We don't need to repeat it with her funeral. --Jiang 22:05, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Frances Shand Kydd will be the grandmother of the future King William V, a person who will rule over 250 million people, and head another billion in the commonwealth. This land area is a quarter of the globe. She also held the title of Viscountess Althrop, and had a sensational divorce case in the 1960s. I think her funeral, which made frontpage news worldwide should be in the 2004 page, especially when such things as Big Brother contestant's appearing in court have been added.

I removed the Big Brother "news" a few minutes ago, before I read your comment. I don't think there's any serious argument for including that level of detail on this page. Regarding the Frances Shand Kydd item, I think her death merited an entry in Deaths, and a factual account of her 1960s divorce might be worthy of inclusion in her own article. But her funeral would not have been news had she not been the grandmother of a future king. I don't think news-by-association like this is worthy of inclusion. Funeral of a prince, yes; funeral of a prince's (non-royal) grandmother, no. -- Avaragado 21:34, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Her funeral made fontpage news in Britain, certainly not in my part of the world/ Who attended her funeral? How many heads of state? Was there a procession? King William's state funeral may be worthy of mention, but not her's. She's just a relative. State funerals are a rare occurrence. Mrs. Shand Kydd was not given one. We only need to accounce her death and nothing more. It's the event we're concerned about, not the person behind it. We don't point out how many times Queen Elizabeth II goes to the bathroom. --Jiang 03:43, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What about this: "September 25 - Port Adelaide Power win Australian Football League Premiership 2004." Is this relevant or notable? Can't this just be mentioned on 2004 in sports? Is it really necessary to have this on the main page?

I guess for Australians, the Australian Football League Premiership winner is notable.

Couldn't we put a country label in front of every entry in the list, like in international news? Like this:

I don't like excluding too much in this list. I think it is meant as a way of finding out what events took place at what time, and for searching. Not so much for reading from one end to the other. The country labels would make it easier to skip the event. I had no idea what VIA Rail was, but if Canada was mentioned first, I didn't need to look up VIA Rail to understand that I didn't care personally (but this doesn't make the event excludable). This wiki is in English language and thus covers a very large portion of the world. And some events that look small to some of us may be big events for others. I think we should include "small" as well as "big" events, and qualify them with country labels. If this makes the month sections too large, we can make each day a section for itself, to avoid editing crashes (two people editing the same text at the same time). --Jhertel 08:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't like excluding too much in this list. I think it is meant as a way of finding out what events took place at what time, and for searching. Not so much for reading from one end to the other. The country labels would make it easier to skip the event. I had no idea what VIA Rail was, but if Canada was mentioned first, I didn't need to look up VIA Rail to understand that I didn't care personally (but this doesn't make the event excludable). This wiki is in English language and thus covers a very large portion of the world. And some events that look small to some of us may be big events for others. I think we should include "small" as well as "big" events, and qualify them with country labels. If this makes the month sections too large, we can make each day a section for itself, to avoid editing crashes (two people editing the same text at the same time). --Jhertel 08:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

    • I think those events are a bit too 'local' to be noted in this article - if we noted everything of that level, it would rapidly turn into an unwieldy size (I know I've spoken in favour of the World Series result, but that made internation news (well, the BBC at least) and the AFL result didn't). So these events should appear elsewhere (e.g. 2004 in Canada, 2004 in Sports). Clearly, though, there isn't an obvious demarkation line here, so it's all up to debate. Average Earthman 13:08, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deaths

There are far too many deaths listed here for unimportant people. Bulgarian playwrights, Portugese historians and minor Indian politicans, I don't care that these people are dead, less have to read about them. It also makes the page too big.

Also do we really need to know that it is the year of rice, or other such rubbish? Astrotrain Number One

If Umberto Agnelli, Miklos Feher, Henri Cartier-Bresson and Christiaan Frederick Beyers Naudé aren’t important enough to be on the list, what makes Tug McGraw, David Hookes, Elroy Hirsch and Harrison McCain so important that they deserve to be on the list? What are your criteria? Aecis 14:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removal of “unimportant” events

  • I would ask that others join in the effort to keep events from being deleted by Astrotrain. A reading of the earlier portions of this talk page will reveal the strong bias of Astrotrain in favor of Britain and royalty, and against many other parts of the world. Astrotrain is free to add items, but deleting notable changes in heads of state, heads of government, and constitutions (as Astrotrain has done for Indonesia, Cambodia, Belarus, Somalia, and Burma) is seriously weakening the value of this encyclopedia article. Some things, like the World Series, are not important to me, but I have not removed them, nor have I removed (except in the reverts) any of the royalist fare that Astrotrain adds and defends. Perhaps Astrotrain is upset by my removal of royalist honorifics — ‘Her Majesty’, for instance, which fails the NPOV test, since only loyal subjects of the queen would use such language. But deleting other editors’ helpful inclusions is hardly a productive response. I have posted a message to Astrotrain’s talk page, but received no reply other than reversion. This is a waste of the time of all other editors. I am prepared to let other editors add events which they believe are important, but I am not interested in a revert war, and I believe that most editors here will support the inclusion of events outside of Astrotrain’s narrow sphere of interest. — Ford 19:22, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

I removed some text. the page is still 39kb long. This is intended to be a summary only of the current events page. If there are objections to the removals, voice each one here. There's a lot more to slash. I'm also thinking that we should do away with the deaths section completely since listing here is rather arbitary. A link to Deaths in 2004 will be enough. --Jiang 22:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Your judgement seems sound enough, Jiang, from my perspective. But I have two objections. The first is that, if these are meant to be the most important events of the year, there were other events that should have been removed first, like, for example, any mention of Britney Spears. The second is that the editors of this page have a difficult enough time agreeing on what is important. Much about Wikipedia and this page is arbitrary; much is subjective. Some of the deaths need to be mentioned here (but not the funerals for the mentioned deaths), because the deaths page itself needs to be summarized, and these are important events. Even some of the sporting events (shudder) belong among the year’s most important events. But a single, coherent, concise summary requires a single editor. Collaboratively, we cannot even agree that the first directly-elected presidency in one of the world’s most populous states (Indonesia) is newsworthy. How do you plan to proceed, and how to avoid the expected response? — Ford 00:06, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

How dare you Ford revert my edits, removing important events such as a fatal aircrash in Missouri, earthquake in Japan, military movements in Iraq, and a royal bust up with the press? I have contributed to the 2003 and 2004 pages consistently in the past year and a half, adding important events, and taking out unimportant ones. Your edits are against the spirit of Wikipedia and I resent the personel attacks on me. I have read no message on my talk page from you, although I have been out this weekend.

At the end of the day, elections in the banana republics that you added are of almost no consequence to the rest of the world. Perhaps if Germany or Italy had an election, that could be added, but not every single nation on earth, especially non-english speaking nations. My contributions to this page have included some British and Royal events, but only because I think them newsworthy and of interest to English speaking nations. I will return the edits you removed in due course 213.122.183.132 20:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I ought to let such blatant eurocentrism and anglocentrism speak for itself, but I cannot resist a reply. Is everyone else watching this? “Banana republics”? You cannot possibly be serious. To my previous list of countries where even a change of government is unimportant to you, we can now add Russia, Singapore, and Caucasian Georgia. I tried to assume that you (Astrotrain) were merely biased, but your edit summaries revealed your contempt. As I noted before, the message I left was here. It was not my intention to remove your additions; you will note that in my earlier remarks, I argued against removing editors’ contributions. I reverted your edits because they were so obviously biased. Why should I take the trouble to keep the contributions of someone who has such a parochial point of view? You resent the personal attacks, you say. Your edits make your standpoint clear; describe it how you like. And I resent your haughty disregard of the vast majority of the world. Well, you win. I do not have time to play this childish game with you. This page will be what you want it to be. But I will tag it for disputed neutrality, so that unsuspecting users of the encyclopedia will know that there is a problem. — Ford 02:06, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Hello Ford, I am sorry you are taking this viewpoint. I disagree that this article has disputed neutrality, afterall the events listed did indeed happen, even your election additions I imagine. I resent the fact that you accuse me of adding only British events, when I added Tokyo earthquake, Missouri plane crash, Iraq events, Australian embassy bombs etc. I have contributed to this article since Jan 1st 2004, adding many events and removing ones that are obviously unimportant (eg someone at the start of the year thought that price increases on the Chicago Underground meritted an entry). The entries you put I guess where more important than these, but uneccesarry in my view. Astrotrain

  • I'd say many of the references you deleted are pretty unnotable (e.g. Pitcairn Islands election (since less than 50 people live on the island), or yet another dead whale exploding) but others aren't - e.g. Prime Minister of Russia, Pervez Musharraf winning a vote of confidence to stay as leader of Pakistan. I'd certainly say that the role of President of Indonesia is more important than some member of the Windsor family having a nightclub scuffle. Average Earthman 08:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Well Average Earthman, thanks for your comments. I am glad you agree with some of my deletions. And if you think that some of what I deleted is wrong, please re-instate, as I think you've done. What I objected to Ford doing was completely reverting my edits to previous versions, which removed events that are undeniably important (eg Missouri plane crash which killed 13 Americans and the Tokyo Earthquake, and British troop deployments in Iraq). I hope that Ford's edit war is not just because he resents my entry for Prince Harry (which did receive worldwide media coverage, esp in the UK and definetly in India where I was when I wrote the article). Articles on the British royal family are significant because they are important people from a politcal and culutral point of view. I think that Indonessian election is personally unimportant, because it was not anything out of the ordinary, or of any consequence to the world, but I really dont mind if it bothers a lot of people. Countries like Georgia or Cambodia definetly should not be mentioned, because they are insignificant in a politcal and population basis. Astrotrain 14:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indonesia, the world’s fourth-largest state, gets a new president, the first one directly elected. Astrotrain: not important. Russia, the world’s sixth-largest state, gets a new prime minister. Astrotrain: not important. Pervez Musharraf, dictator of Pakistan, the world’s seventh-largest state, cements his dictatorship with a vote in parliament. Astrotrain: not important. Caucasian Georgia returns to democracy after years of strife and autocracy. Astrotrain: not important. Burma’s prime minister, probably the best (bad) hope for a negotiated end to military rule, is fired. Astrotrain: not important. Singapore’s ruler de facto installs his son as prime minister. Astrotrain: not important. Somalia’s transitional parliament chooses a new president. Astrotrain: not important. The Stalinist dictator of Belarus arranges to rule indefinitely. Astrotrain: not important. Younger brother of William Mountbatten-Windsor, who will at most have ceremonial duties in Britain in a few decades, bashes a photographer. Astrotrain: a landmark event of global significance. Maternal grandmother of William Mountbatten-Windsor dies. Astrotrain: a landmark event of global significance. William Mountbatten-Windsor gets a haircut. Astrotrain doubts such a thing could have happened, since surely something of such earth-shattering consequence would have been reported breathlessly all over the world. — Ford 00:51, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Why have you not listed these events at 2004 in politics if it bothers you so much. If you are anti-monarchy, that is fine, but please don't attempt to stifle important news stories that made headlines around the world in favour of ones that didn't. Astrotrain 17:13, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • The Google News test - Pervez Musharraf gets 5,650, Prince Harry gets 1,590. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (the new President of Indonesia, for those who care) gets 2,630. So don't claim they don't make headlines around the world. Average Earthman 18:17, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We're trying to get important events on this page, not well-publicised ones. Let's examine these events in terms of their significance ten, twenty or fifty years from now and how they can change history, rather than by how much press coverage they get. National elections, especially of countries with large populations, economies or militaries are important news that will affect the future. Death of a monarch or heir to the throne is similarly important because it changes who will hold power. Death of a relative of a monarch or heir does not change the future and should be on the Deaths page, not on the 2004 page. Neither the death or funeral of Kydd nor a nightclub altercation are events that will significantly influence the future. I want them on the wiki, but not on the list of important things that happened this year. --Globulin 15:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Oh, I agree with you in, I was just pointing out that it cannot be said that the election of Yudhoyono and the backing of Musharraf didn't make headlines around the world as well as being important. Average Earthman 08:54, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For the record, Astrotrain, no one outside of Britain considers events within the British royal family to be significant. That may be heresy in your land, but everywhere else, the fact that Britain has a monarchy with no political power is a slightly amusing footnote of history. While on the one hand, political developments in Cambodia have tremendous significance for southeast Asia and the Cambodian people, the royal family of Britain could evaporate and the only people who would be affected are the paparazzi. Your comment that the English speaking world doesn't care about events in non-English speaking countries is xenophobic and untrue. CNN coverage is not the bar for historical significance. --Alex 03:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • It seems to me that this argument has arisen from the anti-monarchy elements of the Wikipedian community. Alex, your response is incorrect in many ways. The monarchy in the UK has a lot of power and political infulence, not only in the UK, but also the 15 Commonwealth Realms, and the Commonwealth of Nations, which amounts to 1/3 of the globe. Events in Cambodia are generally of no significance to the rest of the world, as Cambodia is a political and economic minnow compared to the rest of the world. Whilst events in Cambrodia are rarely reported (except wars), news involving the British Royal Family IS reported worldwide. I heard about the fight involving Harry on a newsflash in India. The Cambrodian elections, as well as the other minor elections were a mere footnote in the paper. Yes, these countires may be interesting, but not in a political sense. The elections in Cambodia or the other countries mentioned by Ford are minor, and will not be remembered in years to come. Astrotrain 21:10, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


This a curious belief. Astrotrain speaks of the British monarchy as a ruling monarchy, as having power. This is akin to supposing that professional wrestling is genuine sport. We’re all smarts here, surely. Why would any of us suppose that Elizabeth Windsor rules anything? Tony Blair may act deferential to the queen, but do let’s be serious. She takes orders from him. He tells her what to say; and she says it. She is a figurehead; she is a mouthpiece. She is not allowed to have her own opinion on affairs of state. She is dictated to by commoners, who are themselves elected by commoners. The British state has power; Elizabeth Windsor is a sock puppet. When she dies, it will make the news, sure enough. But it ain’t important. — Ford 00:38, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

  • Let's get back to the issue here. The issue is not whether or not the British royal family holds political powers (while it can be said of Queen Elizabeth II that she holds political powers, prince Harry does not). The issue is how important a fight between prince Harry and a paparazzi (off the record: I'm on the side of prince Harry in this) is in comparison to a leadership change in Cambodia. It is true that Cambodia is a political minnow. But this does not matter. What matters is what took place, not so much who were involved in what took place. And you can't deny, Astrotrain, that a leadership change in a country is a bit more important than a fight between a royal and a photographer. It's the events that matter, not the people involved. Aecis 11:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not anti-monarchy; I actually have a soft spot in my heart for the House of Windsor, despite a couple of wars my countrymen fought against Elizabeth's predecessors roughly 200 and 225 years ago. But I have a general apathy about the royals' day-to-day lives. There are things they are involved in which are certainly noteworthy (e.g. Diana's & Charles' divorce, the Queen Mum's death), and there are things they do which are merely news (see others' examples) and which will become mere trivia when they are old news. They key is identifying events that are actual milestones (births, deaths, changes of government, disasters, discoveries), and distinguishing them from events that merely sell newspapers. Cambodian elections will be remembered (certainly in Cambodia); a scuffle involving a prince - even if he could possibly become King Harry - probably will not (no, not even by people in the Commonwealth, of which I know many). Tverbeek 22:25, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While I consider the development in Cambodia much more important than the discussed matters in Britain, it should be remembered that these were not elections in the usual sense. Sihamoni was chosen by a nine-member throne council, a group of heavyweights which included the long-time strongman of Cambodia, Hun Sen (who has thwarted any real democracy in Cambodia). Sihanouk’s abdication and replacement was significant because of the role he personally played in Cambodia’s history and politics. Sihamoni will be different, probably less important; though certainly a great deal more noteworthy than Alice Windsor. And most of the other events that I have listed above are more significant than Sihanouk’s abdication. By the way, I believe we can now say that Average Earthman, Globulin, Alex, Aecis, Tverbeek, and I have all clearly opposed Astrotrain’s judgement on these issues, and no one has supported it. Astrotrain’s position is not merely insular; it is completely isolated. How much longer is the argument to continue? — Ford 23:33, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)

  • I should stress I've opposed Astrotrain's deletion of elections (and I'd like to add note that I consider the referendum in Belarus important as well), not all his deletions, some of which have been about extremely insignificant events (e.g. Britney Spear's latest single). I'm not sure I agree with the blanket deletion of all sporting events - ones that make world wide news probably deserve mention (e.g. the BBC had a report on the Boston Red Sox winning the World Series in their bulletins on both radio and TV as well as online, and it wasn't that quiet a news day). Average Earthman 16:31, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I should stress the same thing. It's not all of Astrotrain's deletions I disagree with. There are some deletions (I don't know exactly how many) I agree with. However, I do believe Astrotrain has (with good intentions, I presume) taken the scope of his deletions too far and deleted items that imho belong in this article. Aecis 20:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Would people please remember one thing: edits to this page happen on a "day-to-day" basis. At the time, the incident involving Prince Harry WAS important. It could have resulted in a police investigation, or possible arrest of a major member of the Royal Family. This was important news. If the Bush twins were involved in a potentially serious incident, it would be of inclusion here also. In hindsight, nothing else has occured on the Prince Harry story, and it appears to have been largely fogotten. So the inclusion was valid, not matter how anti-monarchy some Wikipedians have been. It may be the case that other events seem important at the time of writing, but fade in significance in later days, after the news has died down.

Now my deletions of the Cambodian elections et al were based on the fact that this is a page of world events, and minor political events in politcally insignificant countries did not generally merit a mention. Why has no one used the 2004 in politics page to list these events, that they claim to be important?

Please also note, that I have added a large amount of the entries to this page. I have added entries that concern lots of different countries and not just the United Kingdom. I have also attempted to revert or delete additions to this page that are undeniably insignificant such as Brintey Spears new single. I believe I make important contributions to this page to make it both representative, and relevant. Astrotrain 21:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • As a Wikipedia user, I'd like to thank everyone who puts time into this page. But I'd also like to add that what's refreshing about the 'pedia is its global viewpoint, a viewpoint that isn't reinforced by ambit claims about who is or isn't politically significant. I understand the need to delete trivia (like changes in US airline routes), and also the need to record potentially significant events somewhere and make a later judgement. So perhaps a method might be, particularly on the "year pages" to delete very cautiously until the year has passed, allowing the page to collect a record of whatever anyone thought was important as it passes and then decide when the year is done what was actually significant and what should get refactored out to other pages likes 2004 in politics. If Wikipedia get reduced to what's in the English-speaking news right now, I think we reduce its legacy to history and diminish it's relevance to the world. Remember, not all English-readers live in the "English-speaking world". Just my thoughts. --Timbomb 22:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I stumbled on this interesting conversation by accident, and I'm not a regular contributor here (thus my seemingly unconventional, but trying to follow the convention sig.) I added my two cents because I was so irked by the Anglocentric viewpoint expressed by Astrotrain and wanted to do my part to make sure that doesn't become the norm. I would add that I don't mean to be personal. I'm sure Astrotrain is not a bigot or intentionally closed minded, and I'm also sure he has made honorable contributions to this fine institution and hope he continues to do so - with a slightly broader viewpoint. Everyone has a different viewpoint and bias (I happen to have a soft spot for Cambodia after spending some time there, but know next to nothing about Australian politics.) Certainly noone knows everything, thus the need for an encyclopedia. Personally, I think the long view standard is a good one. Events that change the path of history and become history should be recorded on a serious timeline (which I'm presuming this intends to be.) That is almost a definition of not trivia. Paparazzi scuffles are trivia - they give us a laugh and the world is the same with or without them. New flight routes give us an idea of general dynamism in the world, but are immediately forgettable - unless of course they represent a serious political shift as in (my hope of) a direct Shanghai to Taipei flight. IMO, a non-routine change of leadership in any country is notable here. With a broad stroke, I would reject Astrotrain's assumption that only events with an immediate effect on the "English-speaking world" are notable. Some questions to ask our selves are: "Did the event have an effect greater than itself?" and metaphorically "Is it a bubble or a wave? A point or a pivot?" Often difficult to answer indeed. Perhaps there should be another page for people to read in preparation to earn their pink pie piece. --Alex 06:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • As Alex correctly pointed out, Astrotrain has a very Anglocentric viewpoint. I would like to say the following to him. Encyclopedia's have two goals: to inform and to "spur the senses." Encyclopedia's are not simply meant to tell people what they already know, but also to inform them of what they don't yet know but which is worth knowing. That means that "births, deaths, changes of government, disasters, discoveries" (as Todd Verbeek called it) ought to be listed, in this article and in other articles. That includes events that might not matter to Europe or to the western world. After all, Wikipedia is a global community, not a European or a western community. A change in government is relevant, regardless of whether it is in Cambodia, China, the US or Tuvalu. Aecis 00:21, 6 Nov 2004

1)!!!!I don't know what political point of view one particular person has that justifies their ability to regulate the historical significance a particular event/world leader/disaster has to the potential viewers of this concept encyclopaedia. I came here to get research on the John Company, someone else may come to read about Prince Harry, someone else may come to find out about elections in Indonesia, or a disaster in Cambodia.

2)!!!!For one to say that Prince Harry's haircut is not important because Queen Elizabeth has no real political power and someone else to say Indonesia is not important because it has little importance in the world are in my humble opinion equally narrow minded, and disabling to the Wikipedia concept.

3)!!!!These statements are narrowminded because they are limiting. Below I will provide examples of how both can be significant, but I am compelled to throw 2 cents in on the political power of Queen Elizabeth and Harry. Likely, Harry can go most places in the world and ask to meet with heads of corporations, legislators, civic organizations...about any cause and likely receive an audience. That my friend is political power. With respect to the point that Ford makes, we must be careful not to limit our definition of political power. As an example, a local school board member who is elected to office has political power based on Ford's implied definition. But I say to you that Harry carrying some issue; like a business idea, or a charity can walk through more doors and get results than that local school board member any day.

4)!!!!This debate over what is more significant: Harry's haircut, or Indonesian elections is disabling because while my opinion on the matter is quite obvious to me..... I respect that it may not be as obvious to another. People see from different vantage points and some people need bifocals. Actually, I can't deny, someone may actually come here to do a research paper on image consciencesness of the famous, and use Harry's haircut as an example. It could happen all here at Wikipedia. And of course, some one could wish to study free elections around the world and look to Wikipedia for examples such as an election in Indonesia.

Thank you Ford, and Astrotrain for your intellectually provocative debate, and any other reader for your time and thoughtful consideration of this very important matter.

  • Excuse the possibly pointless comment on what otherwise seems to be a dead thread, but I just can't help myself here. I just stumbled across this talk page, and my opinions on how hilarious it is that some people still consider the British monarchy to be anything more than fodder for gossip magazines completely aside, I do want to say one thing - in regards to Prince Harry's alleged ability to "pitch an idea" to any number of significant people being proof of his political power, all I can say is, George Clooney most likely has that same ability. It's called "fame". Granted, one might argue that in today's celebrity-centric society, fame and power are practically the same thing anyway, but still. Prince Harry has no more political persuasion than any major Hollywood movie star, and arguably less than some. And that's only because his famous face makes it onto the cover of the tabloids once in a while, not because of his status as a royal Prince of Wales.
Oh, and FWIW, if information about anybody getting a haircut ever makes it into a Wikipedia article, I for one think it would utterly discredit this project as an informative encyclopedia - I don't care if it's British monarchy, the US President, or the Pope. Some events just are not notable no matter who they happen to. =) - Vaelor 04:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
unless it is a symbolic haircut.
  • Does Prince Harry affect any of us? The only effect the royal family has, even on British citizens, is that they serve as a money pit. In which case, the cost of his haircut should be mentioned. --YixilTesiphon 02:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

F*** Politics

this is supposed to be an encyclopedia about EVERYTHING, not just POLITICS. Sure we want to know about the events that may shape the political maps in the future, but make sure you take a NEUTRAL side whenever you post something.

I've noticed that the World Series win by Boston has been removed. If the Olympics deserve a spot on here, then surely the win by Boston on that night deserves a spot here as well. 2004 in the sports world will be remembered as the year Olympics returned to Athens; Michael Phelps won 8 medals and emerged as a superstar in the swimming world; and the Red Sox became champions again after 86 years of failure.

BTW, I am not a baseball fan NOR an American, but these events signify what we have in ourselves in trying to succeed and be our best. If you deem these as having no significant values and only focus on retarded politics or wars, then may I suggest you to get a life and quit adding your biased opinions. — Mike 20:25, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just a guess, but the World Series info was on the 2004 in sports article, so that's probably why it was deleted from here. Although there is a systemic anti-American bias in Wikipedia that almost might have been one reason for the deletion. RickK 22:47, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Not sure that's like arguing that everything in 2004 in politics should be deleted. I think this years World Series result actually did make the news worldwide, not something that always happens. But I'd restrict the number of sports events very strictly myself (and I'm keen on sport myself). So World Series yes, but if you think of adding, say, Nascar - please don't bother. Average Earthman 09:55, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


  • The World Series info is generally irrelevant as it is not a sport practised outside the United States to a great extent. Most people including me, have never heard of the Red Sox, therefore are indifferent to their victories, historic or not. Some sporting events such as the Olympic Games, World Cup or EURO football championships are notable because they are inclusive of large sections of the world's population. Astrotrain 18:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The US is larger than Europe. Just because you haven't heard of the Red Sox doesn't mean most people haven't. We need to give more equal coverage, this means notable sports events like this one should be included. Just because most followers are Americans doesnt make it insignificant. I've never heard of Harold Shipman and why should some plastics factory in Glasgow exploding get equal coverage as Dafur (both one line each)? --Jiang 04:00, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • The population of Europe is significantly larger than the US. Average Earthman 12:06, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I give you the opportunity now to explain how this makes Europe more internationally significant. Any regional sporting event is irrelevant to the wider world. I agree with the removal of the World Series (despite the fact that I was overjoyed at it), but on the same token, a "EURO" soccer championship shouldn't be there either, just look at the name. --YixilTesiphon 23:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would expect the Olympics, soccer, cricket, rugby, tennis and F1 motor racing to have international interest (note - not an exclusive list, just the ones I thought of). Domestic American football, baseball, basketball - local interest only. This isn't USA vs the world, this is domestic vs international. Equally for Australia - Australian rules football, Australian rugby league are local interest only. 2004 in sports is fine for these sorts of competitions. -- Chuq 04:19, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A bunch of small countries are still smaller (and therefore cant be counted as more significant) than one big one. The listings here need not have international interest. They just need to have significance and preferable more extensive coverage in the linked articles so there will be meaning to adding them here. Not every World Series deserves mention, but this one does. Baseball is not a domestic sport. Think Japan, Dominican Republic, Taiwan, South Korea, Cuba. --Jiang 04:32, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just because it is played in other countries, doesn't mean there is an international competition. If there is one, then feel free to enter its highlights into the article. If there isn't one, well, it is a domestic sport. -- Chuq 05:07, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A bunch of small countries, Jiang? Have you followed Euro 2004? Do you know which countries participated in it? Countries like England (Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland failed to qualify), like Germany, like Sweden, like Russia, like Italy and like France. Just to name a few. Furthermore, football is the biggest sport in the world, unrivalled by any other sport. The European Championship is the second biggest event in that sport, behind the World Championship. In fact, the European Football Championship is the third biggest sporting event in the world, behind the Olympic Games and the World Football Championships. Such an event deserves to be on the 2004 main page. Yes, baseball is practiced outside the US. And yes, perhaps the Boston Red Sox World Series victory deserves to be on the main page as well. But don't talk down to football championships. Aecis 00:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • F*** it Chuq, did you not read above? it doesn't matter how many countries plays the sport. As long as a large enough fan base exists and that something like the win Boston achieved at this year's World Series, it is worth mentioning. After all, no matter which sport, a comeback like that in the semi-finals down 0-3 in a best of 7 series and going on to win the championship is deserving of a note anyday. — Mike 05:32 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Lacrosse? Tiddlywinks? Come on, the size of worldwide fan base is important, no matter the level of unlikeliness in the event. Average Earthman 12:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
International sport=played in multiple countries. I fail to see how not having an established and widely publicized international competition system automatically makes it insignificant. If it is the most popular sport of several countries then it is significant. Why do international competitions matter? --Jiang 07:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Jiang. I'm Australian. We have no national baseball league anymore. I'm not even a sports fan, yet I also know damned well who the Red Sox are, and what baseball is. Trying to remove it from here is just US-bashing. Ambi 12:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hey, I was just about to say that, and I'm Australian too :) Psychobabble

Criteria for inclusion, revisited

It looks to me like a guideline (that's one degree below "policy" :-) on what should and what should not appear on this page is direly needed. I think Globulin said it best when he said "We're trying to get important events on this page, not well-publicised ones. Let's examine these events in terms of their significance ten, twenty or fifty years from now and how they can change history, rather than by how much press coverage they get." That's a rule of thumb we can base arguments on: add things if you can reasonably make the argument that it will be significant in history. Obviously, it's just a rule of thumb, because no Wikipedian I know of is clairvoyant. (No creating User:Clairvoyant, please. :-)

I'm not saying it makes everything unambiguous. If a banana republic rotates dictators, is that a notable change? Maybe not, but best err on the side of safety and include changes in heads of state by default. If Britney Spears brings out a new single, will it be mentioned in the history books for years to come? Not likely, so it probably shouldn't be mentioned here. How about Janet Jackson exposing a breast? Doesn't seem important in itself, but it had a huge and disproportionate backlash that is likely to be of historical note -- if only just. I hope you agree that this rule of thumb, though still quite subjective, is a more solid basis for discussion than whether or not British royalty has any ruling power, or whether some sport is international or domestic, or which continent counts the most heads.

This would mean many categories get the short end of the stick (there's just much more happening to 2004 in music than will ever be historically of note, even musically speaking, and few sports events stand the test of time), but what are the alternatives? Include everything from the other categories? Include only those events that blew up enough dust in the media? Include everything that is "notable" and invite endless flamewars over what is and isn't "notable"? Just include anything as long as it's somewhere else on the Wiki? (Actually, that last one isn't that bad (at least it's consistent!), but we'd need to split such a page up anyway, because it would become unmanageably large and uninsightful.)

I think the "historically significant" angle has a lot of merit; at least it beats "notable" on the soundness of arguments it invites. Comments? JRM 21:40, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

It can sometimes be difficult to establish at the time of an event its historical impact (and to further muddy things are we talking 1/10/100+ years or not as well). Disasters can often be turning points for institutions, things like the Hatfield rail crash were a turning point which has caused significant changes to the nationalized status of a national transport carrier (sorry my example is British since I live there). This may in itself have little importance to the international readership but the concept of Privatization is far more wide reaching.

Thus it perhaps an good idea when determining the merit of inclusion of an event whether it fits something like the following template:

event 'X' occurred, (brief one line explanation if the title itself doesn't cover it) this

  • lead to a significant 'change' / 'new idea'

or

Thus allowing things which are commonly perceived by someone with limited knowledge of something as being significant (even if really the event was merely a media worthy milestone of no critical significance in and of itself).

By allowing these events to be listed the mildly informed or interested can be drawn in by a known reference point and explore, if they choose, the issue in greater depth. For example had the altercation with Harry caused his conviction for assault thus triggering a wholesale rise in Republicanism and the overthrowing of the British monarchy the event, no matter how trivial the event itself is would have a significance worthy of it's inclusion. Since the aforesaid event has not even resulted in an official caution thus having at this time no lasting effect on his (theoretical) status of future king you have to question it's inclusion by this metric.

Perhaps it would make sense to have a [2004 in perspective] and cascade events in here that have stood the test of time as such and let this page keep future dates as well as the more hit and miss contributions... MattHope 19:05, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

  • just a note on the latest revision by Jiang.....say wdh?!? you removed the closing ceremonies of the olympics while restored the national convention? sure the closing ceremonies of the olymipcs may not have historical significance....but the national convention does?!?!? give me ONE good reason. — Mike 23:55 Nov 3 2004 (UTC)

The opening ceremonies have already been mentioned. It's therefore not necessary to link to the same article again by mentioning the closing ceremonies. The national convention article is featured so we should link to it. It is linked nowhere else on the page while the Republican convention is. --Jiang 04:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • One question I have for LegolasGreenleaf (perhaps I shouldn't ask it here): You removed the "predicted and scheduled events," which, according to you, was "full of insignificant regional elections." I can understand why you see the elections on the Pitcairn Islands and in Turkmenistan as insignificant, because those countries are political minnows, and in the case of Turkmenistan, the elections are nowhere near free, because of our dear friend Turkmenbashi. But since when are elections in Romania, Taiwan and Uzbekistan "insignificant regional elections"? Aecis
    • Fair question. But according to the criteria 'agreed' above, those elections would have no historical value, just like the majority of the elections held globally; were you going to list every election of every country on this page? I don't think so. If you feel that some countries are trying to form a democracy, GOOD, then say so so that the rest of us would know. — Mike 23:52 Nov 05. 2004 (UTC)
      • I personally think that all these three are relevant. The elections in Romania determine the relationship between Romania and the EU, and determine which government will hold negotiations with the EU, since Romania is likely to join the EU in 2007. The elections in Taiwan determine the relations between Taiwan and mainland China, one of the hotbeds of possible war on this planet. Uzbekistan is one of the powerhouses in central Asia, a region where muslim fundamentalists are trying to gain ground. The region holds some of the largest oil reserves in the world, and is therefore very important to the world economy. The elections in Uzbekistan are an indication to the possible future locations of the war on terrorism. So in my view, these three are relevant for the 2004 main page. The elections on the Pitcairn islands could be added as well, to see whether the recent paedophilia scandal has had an effect on local politics. Aecis
        • Well, of course it has, they've just jailed a tenth of the population. The island is tiny, less than 50 people live there. Seriously, their elections aren't important. Average Earthman 20:42, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Images

Would it be a good idea to put some images of the main events of the year in this page (and also the other year pages)? It would brighten the articles up a bit??? Astrotrain 19:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. But be careful - this is sure to spark another big debate about which images should be added. Brianjd

Quite. Would an image of the wardrobe malfunction be worthy? Images are obviously a delicate issue. YuriBCN 22:38, 02 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Right Livelihood Awards

I've never heard of these awards before in my life. Are they really notable enough to deserve a section similar to the Nobel Prizes? Average Earthman 13:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I deleted this from some of the other year pages yesterday Astrotrain 19:25, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, since I've never heard of them, and Google has hardly heard of them, I'm deleting them. If you disagree with this, please explain why they are of note, because few people appear to have heard of them (700 hits on Google suggests I'm not alone). Average Earthman 20:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Results 1 - 100 of about 68,900 for Right Livelihood Awards. ([1])
        Of course, that was without quotes. But I checked all of the first 100 (that were in English) and all but 2 seemed to be legitimate references. Surely this at least deserves a redirect? Currently, Wikipedia has no article on these awards. Brianjd
        • The best way to get accurate results on this is to enter it like: right-livelihood-awards and for that we get 1820 pages([2]).
          Have zero opinion on this, just thought I'd clue everyone into the dashes thing

NPOV

By definition (and it seems too obvious to have to state), if someone, some one person, disputes the neutrality of the article, then it is disputed. Statement of fact. To remove the tag shortly after it is added, and when the page is substantially unchanged, is a disservice to the right of every editor to contribute. Jiang asked “Who’s still disputing the neutrality?”; but did so while reverting an attributed edit. We might assume, then, that LegolasGreenleaf was still disputing it. But in any case, I am still disputing the neutrality. Only some of my earlier reasons for disputing the neutrality of the page have been corrected; and those reasons are well chronicled on this talk page. Many events have been restored, thanks largely to the efforts of Aecis; but the article remains anglocentric and eurocentric when taken as a whole. The removal of the tag by Astrotrain was wishful thinking. And when LegolasGreenleaf restored it a day later, it was then instantly removed again by Jiang. How much more evidence is required that we have not yet reached agreement? — Ford 00:12, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

  • the reason why I added the sign was because we HAVE NOT reached an agreement on what exactly should be recorded here and what should be kept out. If we did then that discussion on 'Right Livelihood award' would not have taken place. As long as the years go on (2004, 2005, 2006 ... etc), there will be differences in opinions and these pages at best will still not be as neutral as we would like. — LegolasGreenleaf 02:11, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

One cannot simply tag the article, saying one disputes the neutrality, without saying how it is not neutral. The edit before mine just added the notice without explaining why and I could not find why. I simply saw that many of Astrotrain's edits have been reverted and many of the suggested removals have been removed. Now that it is explained, this the notice can stay. --Jiang 02:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Far be it from me to presume to have fixed this obviously inflammatory debate, but what remains for the tag to be taken down now? Psychobabble 09:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I have reverted Psychobabble's edits of British events that occured during 2004. These are of importance, despite the anglophobia of some Wikipedian contributer such as Ford and Acetis. I have agreed for trival third world countries' elections to be listed, but I am not prepared to key events removed just becuase they concern the UK, or the Royal Family. Astrotrain 14:49, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Psychobabble: I would request that you not alter the appearance of the debate by inserting your comments at the beginning. It would be better if you added them to the end as everyone else does, or inserted them as a reply where appropriate; and be so kind as to use the time stamp, so it will be clear when your comments were made. I could not move your comments without editing your text for sense; please move them yourself. I appreciate some of your motives, but you were right to doubt your ability to fix the page to everyone’s satisfaction, and you were reverted by Astrotrain for your troubles. That underlines my reasoning for tagging the article in the first place: there is not yet agreement, and as long as some editors are habitually changing what others do, one side will be displeased. In any case, we cannot have an editor swooping in, arbitrating the dispute, removing the tag, and pronouncing the debate over. It clearly is not. — Ford 15:24, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

I've removed my comments and I'll stay away. The fact that my edits were reverted wholesale (and they were not all english ones, though the fact that most of the trivial events there were Blai related meant they were disproportionately represented) shows that some have no intention of engaging constructively in improving this page. I'm out. Psychobabble 04:48, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Does the 2004 page in other languages have a centre on that particular culture (eg does the Portugese page write from a Portugese/Brazillan centre?, or the Spanish page from a Spain/Latin America centre?) I would say that the English page is more likely to include events from English speaking nations such as the UK/USA/Australia, as it is more likely that English speakers will edit this page. Personally I think that this page is neutral and does include a wide range of world events from a global perspective. Yes it may include events from the UK, but I stress again, that this is only when important. It seems to be that the inclusion of royal entries annoys some people, but it seems that removing an entry because it is about the royal family is not being neutral, whether or not you think it is relevant. The neutrality tag should be removed.

But it will not be. You yourself (Astrotrain) are primarily responsible for skewing the page, and there is wide (though not universal) agreement that your additions and removals take the page further away from neutrality. What you feel is important is out of touch with what nearly everyone else feels is important. Your royalty fixation is merely emblematic; I am far more concerned with your constant preference for events that affect only those directly involved over events that affect millions, even hundreds of millions. You simply have no perspective on what matters in the world. But while we are talking about royalty, would you do us both a favor and quit adding those worshipful prefixes to every mention of every member of every royal family? I am going to take them out, each and every time; and what is more, you already know that. — Ford 00:35, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Only you dispute neutrality it seems. If you look at my edits, you will see that I add entires for events all over the world. Look at November, all are my entries with origins of: 3 United States, 1 United Kingdom, 1 European and 1 Australian entry. Most of the events listing royals are indirect (eg the Queen opens the Scottish Parliament building). If someone else had opened the Scottish Parliament it would have read for example Steven Seagal opens the Scottish Parliament building or JK Rowling opens the Scottish Parliament building, or for other entires, Krusty the Clown officaly names the Queen Mary 2 cruise liner. You really need to stop this mindless dispute, I have already showed compromise by agreeing for minor elections to be listed. I suggest you compromise also, and stop removing my edits to the page also, and instead work towards creating a suitable and informative page on Wikipedia. Astrotrain 13:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

- - - -
Have you not been paying attention? Several others dispute the neutrality of this page. They have echoed my language: you are anglocentric and eurocentric. And everything you list to counter that charge supports it. One European entry, and five in the anglophone world. It has not been I, though, who has been deleting your additions. The only entries I have ever deleted here were in a revert of your edit, and, as explained, the only reason I did that was to spare myself or someone else the trouble of reinserting all of the important events that you deleted, based on your obvious bias. The efforts that others have made to restore them have shown that you were in the minority in dismissing them. (I believe that, owing to an edit conflict, several other changes were not saved; but that was inadvertent on my part, and I have not fought any attempt to restore those changes.) The only entry I have added to this page was on Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and it should be obvious that most persons here consider his election to have been a significant event. My contributions here have been on the issues of factual accuracy and neutrality. An encyclopedia has high standards for those, and while I do not believe you have deliberately made factual errors (your restoration of the ‘Ricky Dutton’ vandalism must have been a mistake), you have provided plentiful evidence that you are focused on issues that have limited or no historic import, and yet cannot comprehend that. It is not just the royalty; I am also puzzled by your fixation on disasters. People die in accidents all day, every day, all around the world. You report only the ones that you hear about in your provincial exploration of the news. Yes, they make the news, but unless they lead to some significant social change, they will not make history.

This page is important; it is linked to with almost every mention of 2004 in any article. It is simply not up to the standards of history, journalism, or publishing that the encyclopedia aspires to. That reflects poorly on the internet and on the collaborative idea. — Ford 14:20, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

That's exactly what this page needs. If we were to include events of the royal family, no matter big or small, we might as well include the royals from all over Europe, the empiror in Japan, the king in Cambodia...etc. In doing so the purpose of this encyclopedia would be lost. No we don't want this to be a record of what 'important' people do, but rather a record which in 10 years people can look back and see how it was like in 2004 from a global perspective.
Since wiki is of such an unique nature, it IS possible to include every single detail that might be of interest, but those details shouldn't appear on this page. — LegolasGreenleaf 02:15, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • But we can't write this page from a future perspective, we can only write it as events unfold throughout the year. I doubt if anyone in 10 years time writing such a page would include a lot of the entires (including some that I may have written), and certainly not minor third world countries elections. The view I take is that I will add events of interest as they arise, they can always be removed at a later date. But as the year unfolds, we cannot be sure of exactly what is important, but obviously some things such as airline routes will never be of interest to a wide auidance. Looking at the page, there is actually view royal entires, which seems to be the main point of contention.

It is also worth noting that in future some events not listed will be deemed important and could be added. Astrotrain 12:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course we can write this page from a future perspective. Just think about these events like you would think about the Gulf War 13 years ago, along with the collapse of USSR, etc. Many events can be distinguished as having global significance as they happen. You are right about that events which may be deemed important can be added in the future, but pages like 2004 will get far less visits when the its time has passed. — LegolasGreenleaf 19:05, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Moving royal events to dedicated page

Astrotrain's affection of royal events is at best cluttering the 2004 page. I've added a royal event to this page myself once, but now I suggest that all royal events be moved to a dedicated "2004 in a royal perspective" page, with a link from the 2004 page. TroelsArvin 22:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Not true, only important events have been added. A 2004 in royality page could be made, however important events involving the royals should be inlcuded in the 2004 page. (btw I am not a die-hard monarchist, just someone who is interested in improving Wikipedia)
    • And Ford, royal titles and styles is not a "point of view", they are legal titles afforded by UK law. Therefore it is proper to include them. Astrotrain 23:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Don’t be silly. Governments are themselves not neutral. Any number of governments in the world were established specifically to dispute the majesty of the British crown. That the House of Windsor is “high” or “majestic” is strictly the point of view of the Windsors and their loyal subjects, who are, needless to say, only some of their subjects. If the British government passes a law mandating that we refer to the Windsors as “Divine and Infallible”, I will not countenance that either. Why not? Because words have meaning. Elizabeth Windsor is the queen, by definition, even though the office is powerless and therefore not worth our attention. I have not been the deleter of your submissive confectionery; others have done that. Numerous others, in fact, have reinserted newsworthy events that you have deleted, or deleted events that you have added. You are the only one who seems to believe that the royals are important. But my line in the sand is the use of these honorifics. Elizabeth is the queen, but her majesty is a matter of opinion, and in this forum, a very isolated opinion. Is nothing more important to you than celebrating this woman and her progeny? — Ford 00:35, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Just because they are of the royal family DOESN'T make whatever they do IMPORTANT. -__________-

    • It is not a matter of opinion, that any royal is HRH or HM or whatever, it is either custom, law or both. In UK law, some people do have the legal right to use the style HRH. That is fact, not a point of view. Whether you agree of the description is another matter. It is not a point of view to use someone's legal title to mention them. While UK law does not apply worldwide, it is customary to refer to people with the title in use in their country of origin. In the case of the Queen, she is styled HM in the UK as well as other Commonwealth realms, and the other members of the Commonwealth of Nations. Foreign countries would also style her as such, as is customary in diplomatic circles. I really don't see your problem, unless it is an anti-monarchy viewpoint (which is not neutral in itself) Astrotrain 12:54, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Airing of the videotapes of suicidal disscussions of Diana is already controversial enough, let alone the pie-in-the-face incident. We sympasize with Diana because her pre-mature death, but the airing of what MIGHT have took place cannot have enough significance to be put onto this page, probably only for the publicity of the broadcaster. That Pie-in-the-face incident happens too often in the political world it shouldn't be news anymore, unless George W. Bush gets a pie in the face on a visit to China.

Looks like another wave of discussion will follow up. Great Job everyone. — LegolasGreenleaf 02:26, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

    • Astrotrain's claim that only important royal events have been added is incredibly wrong. Anyway, I'm glad that Astrotrain supports the creation of a page for royal events in 2004. Since there are already several other specialized 2004 pages, this is actually only natural. What would a good name for a 2004-page of royal events be? "2004 in royalty" sounds strange to me, but then again, English is not my mother tongue.
      Once the royal 2004 page has been created and events have been added to it, I suggest it's time to review the main 2004 page, considering all the other, specialized 2004 pages (which I were not aware of until recently). One task should be to clean up, moving some events out of the main 2004 page. Another should be to make the specialized 2004 pages more visible; one way to do that is to link to them from the main 2004 page: Say a major event occurs in New Zealand -- important enough to be on the main page; such an event should preferrably link to the 2004 in New Zealand page in one way or another. TroelsArvin 14:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I recently visited the 2004 page and in reading it could sense something was wrong. Too many insignificant, and often strange, articles from one user. You would think that the Queen of England, sorry, Her Majesty, still ran the world. Most Wikipedia content is soundly constructed, but the 2004 page is a mess and seems very amateurish. This "Astrotrain" editor is a problem you need to sort out. Deaths - October 29 - Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, aunt of Queen Elizabeth II. Who cares..not me..and I'm a Canadian monarchist! and this one is just silly.. November 6 - The 1735 express train from London's Paddington Station to Plymouth crashes into a car deliberately parked on a level crossing in Berkshire and derails, killing seven people. A train hit 3 cows not 2 km from my house, killing them all. Should I add that? Volkslad 16:30, 18 Nov 2004

  • there is actually very few royal events listed currently on this page. There are three or four that mention QE2, but they are indirect as I mentioned above (eg if Sean Connery had officially opened the Scottish Parliament building, it would be he who is stated in the entry). There is one on a Danish royal wedding (not added by me), and one on transfers of political power in Leichenstien(again not added by me). I really don't see what the problem is on mentioning royals either directly or indirectly on this page. Any entries I have made were done on the belief that the said entry merited a note in a page listing events of the year. Opposition on the basis of anti-monarchy feelings are not neutral. As for the deaths, the list is not written to list people that any one person would care about, it is supposed to list notable people who have died during the year. Your personal opinion on the people who have died is irrelevant. And the train crash in Berkshire was a terrible tragedy and should not be mocked by anyone.
    • Regarding the Danish royal wedding - it was to an Australian, which is why it was relevant on en:. (It looks like Mary is the new Princess Di of Australian womens magazines) -- Chuq 00:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The main problem I see with the 2004 page is that because it is written by so many people and edited several times a day, it loses a sense of style that if it were written by one or two people. Also as events and deaths occur, people wish to add them without thinking whether they actually merit entry or are suitable for this page. I am free to admit that I added events that in subsequent weeks have seen their validity for inclusion decrease, but again as I have already explained, as this page relates to an ongoing time frame, it can only be edited based on current perspectives of what is important. Astrotrain 16:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I think a better solution would be to add the royalty events and other celebrity events (e.g. Britney Spears' marriages) to a 2004 in showbusiness article (or an article with a similar title). Aecis 00:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rmv'd some listings

I have removed the following items. If you disagree, please explain why:

--Jiang 01:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

      • I disagree with this one, because even the losing bids will have spent a hefty amount of money (although this is now our opportunity to achieve consensus on this one, one way or another). Average Earthman 09:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with your removals. TroelsArvin 08:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with: Uzbekistan Airways crash, all fatal plane crashes involving a major airline or national carrier should be listed. And 37 is a high number to die in a plane crash. Similar with the Berkshire train crash which also had a large fatality. Also disagree with the removal of Diana's mother from death section, mainly because at least 75% of the current entries on this page are insignificant. Astrotrain 09:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So your suggested solution of the page being full of insignificant entries, is to add more insignificant entries? -- Chuq 09:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that the listed items are not notable. — Ford 14:35, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
  • I definately agree with those removals, as do the majority of people here (judging by the number of times these have been removed before and also by comments). Unfortunatly Astrotrain doesn't, so your edits will probably reversed. Psychobabble 01:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

These listings are best utlilized if we link to an article with more extensive coverage of the event. I wouldn't object to listing the Uzbekistan Airways if we linked to an article on the specific flight itself. (Youd think if it were important or significant enough then it would have an article by now! The most significant thing about plane crashes is the media attention they receive.) I don't think seven is a significant number as far as fatalities go. Again, it would be helpful if this were not the only place (or the place giving the most detail) where the event is mentioned. I suggest that instead of adding Diana's mother back in we work to remove more people from the list of deaths. What's a target number to aim for? --Jiang 15:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

no article=not significant enough for mention. (Simon Bradley)

Wrong! However, the first results on Google are all for different Simon Bradley's and none of them are writers. Brianjd

  • I agree with the edits in general, but for what it's worth the Batman protest obtained as much coverage in Australia as the World Series final. :)

What should be included here?

There will never be universal agreement to what should be included in this page. For everyone who thinks that one event is significant, there will be several others who think it insignificant. The only solution would be to define exactly what should be included and what should not. However given it is a page about the current year, and so many different things can potentially be listed, it will be almost impossible to achive agreement. Personally I think the following should always be included:

  • Any national Elections in politically significant countries (ie G8, Canada, Australia, some large European)
  • Significant election results/referendums in other countries not automatically included, or subnational elections where important
  • Major political events (that make world wide headlines) that occur in politcally significant countires
  • Natural disasters (eg earthquakes, hurricanes)
  • Fatal aircrashes on commerical airlines/national carriers
  • Fatal rail crashes on passenger trains
  • Major anniversies (eg 60th anniversary of DDay)
  • Opening of famous/important buildings (eg Scottish Parliament)
  • Major cultural events
  • Major sporting events of sports with a worldwide following (esp Olympics, World Cup, Euro, The Open, Wimbeldon, US Open, US Masters)
  • Important scientific discoveries and break throughs.

For births, obviously few famous people born this year will be notable or known of at the present, which explains why only royal births are listed at present.

For deaths: list only the following:

  • Heads of state of any country (former or present)
  • Significant political people in large countries
  • Senior royality
  • Well known actors, singers etc
  • if the person doesn't even have a Wiki article, they should definetly not be added.

Personaly I don't think Nobel prize winners, or the fact that this is the Year of Rice or whatever should be mentioned.

Overall, I don't think people should be discouraged from adding events that they think is important at the time, as this is a current year with events unfolding. Current perspectives are of use.

Is there any other constructive suggestions of things that should be included, or not included? Astrotrain 11:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

- - - -
Obviously I disagree with the above definition of politically-significant countries (why Australia but not China or India or Indonesia?), and would prefer a standard for political events that automatically included the most populous states and those with the largest economies, and otherwise considered the relative political significance of the event (for example, a coup d’état would be important anywhere). I disagree with the inclusion of transportation accidents, fatal or not, unless there is some lasting broader social impact or the death toll is very high (both of which would apply to the ferry disaster in Sénégal in 2002). I wholly disagree with the inclusion of any anniversaries; people can subtract on their own. Seldom would a building opening merit inclusion; though the first meeting of the revived Scottish parliament would have merited inclusion, back when it happened. Most sporting events are unnotable outside of sport itself and are annual as well, and belong on a year-by-year list of winners only (another win by the Yankees or Manchester United is not notable in the slightest, for instance). I agree with the inclusion of political events, cultural events, scientific discoveries, carefully-selected disasters (natural or otherwise), and other events viewed by the standard of historical significance.

I can tolerate the listing of the births of predicted heads of state (Ingrid Alexandra), and the deaths of heads of state, but we should remember that most “monarchs” are figureheads, and if they are important at all, their relatives are not (thus, “senior royalty” should not be listed). In any case, deaths of current and former heads of government are far more important and worthy of mention than heads of state. I agree that no one lacking an article should be included. I agree as well that the “designations” are not notable and not even potentially historic. — Ford 14:35, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

"Heads of government" would be classed as a "significant political person" so should be included. Senior royality, would include consorts, hiers to the throne, former monarchs, so should be included, because their deaths would likely receive coverage, and they will be remembered historically.
The reason I did not include China was, I believe, they don't actually have elections! Indonessia itself is not a politically significant country. Australia is more significant, and as an english speaking nation, its citizens are likely to access this page, more than say a non-english speaking nation.
Anniversies that are widely celebrated should be included.
Fatal transport disasters are also historically important. Astrotrain 15:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually China has "elections", it's just not a democracy, the person in power will remain in power until he feels like quitting. But since the nation's modern founding in 1949, there has only been THREE (3), count them, THREE changes of head of states, and China is undeniably a rising superpower, thus whatever international moves they make AND changes of head of state is significant as they'll affect, one way or another, how the balance of power will stand in the future.
  • about the anniversaries...plz, let's not bother cluttering up this page more with events that happen on a regular basis where nothing special will have occurred. I agree with adding disasters if they are on a large scale (ie high death toll/damage, areas affected, etc).
  • Regarding monarchs..i assume that you are referring to European monarchs, who has literally no power over what-so-ever, unlike some african/asian/south american ruling kings who actually do run their respective countries. Their inclusion is only because they reside in more 'famous' countries. I doubt their 'significance' will last outside of their area of 'influence' and would dissipate rapidly from any media attention. The monarchs have lost their power in modern times, this is not an 'age of empires' nor the 'medievals'. At best they represent the symbols of how European nobles were like once. — LegolasGreenleaf 21:18, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Regarding Indonesia, I believe everything that happens in Indonesia is extremely relevant to Australia. It is a country of 200+ million, (Australia is 20 million) it is a large muslim country (which is relevant in today's "fear of islam" that people try to instil in others), and the two terrorist attacks against Australia have both been on Indonesian soil. I don't think (geographically) smaller, non english speaking, non western countries should be excluded for this reason. -- Chuq 23:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


The thing is not to list items just people our audience is familiar with the subject. The goal is to educate. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. It doesn't matter what country we're discussing but as long as the event is well-documented in the international media and forces us to make substantial changes to our articles. We should be blind to where things happen by itself and see things by their significance (this could, however, be affected by location but location is not what we should look at). I disagree with adding anniversaries unless the anniversary was a significant event in itself and is documented in some form in another article. If the celebrated didn't warrant a significant update in the relevant article, then it's not important enough for this page. --Jiang 20:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The British Manarchy does have significant legal powers, follow the links from law (just incase you are wondering, ford I am an american with no british ancestry) I do think that several of the elections were important though not all were, Please, astrotrain the prince harry event isnt even remembered verry well and is not of earth shattering significance. Paladine

  • One needn’t be British to hold your opinion; I would not have assumed so. But the British monarchy does not have any power. It has power de jure, or pro forma if you will, but the elected government makes all the decisions, and neither the queen nor the government pretends otherwise. I am not entirely sure how this myth is perpetuated.
    Ford 01:14, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
  • And read this timely article: Queen’s speech (BBC). Are the Conservatives criticizing the queen? How dare they? But then, if so, why do they call her ‘they’, rather than ‘Her Majesty’?
    Ford 10:37, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
  • The question isn't whether the Queen has politcal power, implied or otherwise, it is whether events concerning her, directly or indirectly are valid for inclusion on the 2004 page, which they obviously are. Just because she may not appear on Question Time, or kiss babies at election time, does this make her unimportant, or of no regard. She is an important person, both in a consitutional sense, and in a cultural/global sense as the Head of State of 17 countries and various territories and colonies. Debates over any politcal power of are not valid here, as this is not the 2004 in politics page. Astrotrain 20:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, enough of the Royal bashing already. Countries have heads of state - how they get them is their own business. As for I doubt their 'significance' will last outside of their area of 'influence' and would dissipate rapidly from any media attention. What? This is the latest generation of a dynasty which goes back over a thousand years. It has had more power at times and it has had less power - but it has prevailed. I think you're killing it off a bit prematurely. Nor is its influence confined to one small country - those troops which are fighting alongside US troops in Iraq: they fight for the crown not for the prime minister. Britain has a long history of struggle between monarch and parliament, just because it is not being openly 'tested' at this moment doesn't mean its finished. — Btljs 23:16, 2004 Nov 25 (GMT)
  • Wow Astrotrain you just gave me one bloody good reason post this one.
  • You removed my entry of China investing $20 billion dollars in Argentina and re-added your pathetic royal crap which I (among many others) couldn't care less.
  • You know before this i tried to hold back and thought with you being attack from so many side it's probably better for me to stay off...but no, you kept on adding/deleting to how YOU think which events should be included here o.O.
  • Other matters aside, that $20 billion dollars is more than 4% of the amount of deficit the US is currently facing, and it's coming from a third world power AIDING somebody else. I'm going to make a bloody bet with you that China will better Britain's ass on any given day in all categories you can come up with except in the sport of soccer or what you might call football.
  • Why don't you do a search on how many times China (not taiwan) has appeared on this page directly when compared to it's influence in the current world: not even once. Your edits have really pissed a lot of people off.
  • I'll assume that your intentions are of a good nature, but you cannot keep adding this British-centered views of how YOU see the world from that tiny island you call home and pledge your allegiance to an old women who will not care for your existance nor will you ever going to meet. — LegolasGreenleaf 21:37, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer to see all sporting events listed on a dedicated Sport in 2004 page. Sport is an entertainment; a substitute for tribal warfare' an appalling waste of time, energy, and money in a world with real problems. How many millions do each of the players in Man Utd make? Hoe much time is spent reporting sport "news" on TV? Who won the World Cup or the World Series in 1948? Who cares? The people who care should see Sport in 2004; real news of real moment should be on this page. Evertype 10:54, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Year of XYZ

I have removed International Year of Technology and International Year of Education by Sports from 2004. First, I have been unable to establish that any known organization gave these designation to 2004. More importantly, these designations are not in common usage outside of Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors of this page. Even if they were given these designations by an official organization, the lack of common usage dictates these are non-notable and don't belong in the article. Deletionist 22:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You may have a point there. Can the person who put them up there provide a source as to where they originated? At first I thought they were rather funny, like "international year of rice'... -__- and I looked at a few other similar pages (2002, 2003...etc), they all had some titles. That's why I was leaning toward keeping them. — LegolasGreenleaf 22:26, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to keep them if they were in common use. So far as I can tell, they're not. That said, the two "Year of XYZ" designations I left appear to be adopted by enough people to establish notability. Deletionist 09:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I've done a quick Google, and it appears there may be a UN declared International Year of Sport and Physical Education, but the year in question is 2005, not 2004. [|UN website]. Average Earthman 20:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a European Year of Education by Sport (EYES; 2004). It has been designated as such by the European Union. Aecis 00:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) (PS. Legolas, the International Year of Rice has been designated as such by the UN's FAO.)

Thus it is not international. --YixilTesiphon

Removed Items - Please reinstate if the consensus decides Notability

Removed although maybe I shouldn't have... maybe someone with experience of American sport can decide how notable this event was. --NeilTarrant 23:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Very notable in US sport. A huge deal. But not important in the world at all. Leave it out. — Ford 01:14, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

Doesn't this happen every year? I can see a reason to include individual, damaging hurricanes can be listed, but the 'start of the season is non notable surely! --NeilTarrant 22:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Very tasteless, but not notable on a global scale, --NeilTarrant 22:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why anniversaries?

Why do we include anniversaries of events? Unless something happened on the anniversary, related to the fact of it being an anniversary, more than people 'celebrating the anniversary', I don't see the importance. And favoring 'important' anniversaries like multiples of 5 or 10 is very POV, even if a lot of people consider these numbers to be special.

As an example of ones that I think should be kept, "March 20 - Thousands protest at the 1-year anniversary of the start of the 2003 invasion of Iraq." and probably "April 5 - Queen Elizabeth II begins a state visit to France to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Entente Cordiale", but maybe not "May 30 - Thousands of people in Hong Kong take to the streets to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre." and probably not "June 6 - The 60th anniversary of D-Day is celebrated in Normandy." --SPUI 00:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


so you are saying that 'thousands of people' is more important than all those students died while demonstrating for democracy within a dictatorship? and more important than the allied soldiers who died trying to defend the freedom you have now? -__- think again please. — LegolasGreenleaf 02:06, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Er, what the hell is that supposed to mean? We have the original event in the year it happened. But the fact that it happened exactly a certain number of years ago is NOT an event on its own. --SPUI 02:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • of course we are not adding it year by year....like, 10, 20, 30, multiples of 10 would be significant...and plus, this year is the 60th anniversary, by its 70th anniversay, vast majority of the survivors would have died of old age....no offense in anyway, but i just think that normal protesting in the First World is not as significant as they sound. — LegolasGreenleaf 02:39, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
But why? Why is 60 more important than 59 or 61? Or 59.145? We shouldn't be arbitrarily deciding that those are important, UNLESS a significant number of people do AND do something noteworthy about it. --SPUI 03:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • good question...i haven't thought about that really. Well, for starters we use the decimal system, powers of 10, whenever we see a good number like, 10, 50, 100, 1000, etc, we are glad that it's not some fraction which is often painful to deal with. Secondly, I think it's a convention to mark events by multiples of ten, like the decade(10), the century(100), and the millenium(1000).
  • Yes, I agree that a 'significant number of people' should be involved and 'do something noteworthy about it.' Isn't it worth it to remember the mistakes of war? This could sound philosophical but it's true. The reason we remember significant events from the devastating world wars is an effort not to repeat them. You know that. Easier said than done tho. — LegolasGreenleaf 05:27, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
o ya, i removed the Pope's visit to France...I just thought he visits a lot of places...lol, what you peoplez think? — LegolasGreenleaf 02:15, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

The anniversary itself is not important. But what is done on the anniversary may be important, which is why context matters. The protests in Hong Kong were a big deal — as I recall, the second-largest in Hong Kong history — and they were directed squarely at China, which does not allow any dissent on the mainland and is precariously close to stifling dissent in Hong Kong as well. It was a bold move by the democrats in Hong Kong, showed their strength, and may well be remembered as something that affected the course of Chinese political development. Whereas even the protests before the Iraq war, as massive as they were, were taking place in democracies that allow free expression, or in dictatorships that were orchestrating the protests for their own purposes — they were, in other words, risk-free, and do not appear to have changed anything. I believe that the first round of protests were nonetheless significant (just for sheer size), and worth noting. Perhaps even the one-year anniversary protests were worth noting briefly. But neither compares for historical import with the demonstration in Hong Kong.
Ford 10:37, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

I didn't realize the Hong Kong thing was so big - maybe something about the risk should be added to the description, rather than just saying that people "took to the streets". --SPUI 10:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Target Audience

This is a very amusing discussion page - I have sat through endless committee meetings like this. They never get anything sorted out. Not wanting to extend it any more than it already is (I love the so-called NPV remarks from all sides: e.g. that the Queen has no political power. You know this do you? Funny how the armed forces all pledge allegience to her then. And the ranking of countries and sports...) but I can't resist putting in my pen'th (that's 2 Cents to those of you who live in the big country over the pond)

It's not that there is no final editor - articles can be perfectly coherent without being controlled by one person. It's because none of you know who you're actually writing it for. Who is the target audience? There is some discussion about telling people things they didn't know - but who are you telling and who decides what they know or what they should be told? Presumably I am as entitled to be considered a member of the target audience as I clicked on this page out of curiosity. I am not at all happy about ANY of the deletions which have been discussed to death above. That is not to say that they all interest me (far from it) but I just don't like the idea of somebody deciding what I'm allowed to read. I'm quite happy to skim past articles about Olympic swimmers and Baseball and elections in countries I'll never visit in order to find something which interests me.

So, please leave Prince Harry alone and the Red Sox and Indonesia. Don't try to justify your own inbuilt bias and prejudice (we are ALL prejudiced by our own personal experiences) with statistics (4th biggest population, played by more countries etc.) or by putting down what is important to other people (a train crash which kills 7 people is very important to their families. It might not be earth-shattering but it is still a news event of this year).

In ten or fifty years time if I look at this page again I am as likely to be interested in a small event which typified life at the time (e.g. France still had a coal mine in 2004!) as some so-called global event (e.g. Bush getting elected again) which will have been relegated to 'List of presidents with dates'. Different things connect with people's lives.

If somebody deems it fit to take the time to put something on this page I don't see why it should be removed unless its wrong, rude or nonsensical. If there is a problem with page size then it should just be split by category (e.g. events in Europe, Asia; wars, sport etc.) and the links maintained in the topmost page. What is the alternative? Pick the one hundred most important events as voted for by... who? Or allow items to be removed and reinstated ad infinitum?

--Btljs 22:51, 25 Nov 2004 (GMT)

Yes, I do know that the queen has no power. So does anyone who has bothered to examine the UK political structure at all. Many US citizens pledge their allegiance to the flag. Does the flag have political power? No one here was seriously minimizing the suffering of the families of anyone killed in an accident. But we do not post every car accident, or every death of any other sort. Our standard cannot be: Let every person post what it feels important from its own perspective, including personal matters. And deleting an item does not mean you are not allowed to read it. It only means you will have to look elsewhere for it. Strange that you protest any attempt at objectivity (statistics like population size), and then protest the ensuing subjectivity. Shall we just post every single thing that happens in the year? I just bought groceries; it was important, because otherwise I would have starved to death. And who are you to say that my death does not belong in an encyclopedia? And if we are not to judge what is important, why are we to judge what is wrong, rude, or nonsensical?
Ford 04:41, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Btljs, you are taking the easy, conflict-phobic approach: "Oh well, let's just let everything go, then". I don't know what board meetings you attend to, but it's not a good solution in my World. Your suggestion about splitting the subject into sub-pages is good, and it has already happened. An example: 2004 in the United Kingdom, perfect for an item like the Ufton Nervet rail crash. TroelsArvin 10:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK. First the discussion on the power of the Queen should take place somewhere else as it has no relevance to this page. I'm more than happy to explain about the mechanism by which Royal power is manifested, but not here.

Second, your reply is entirely predictable but not helpful, i.e. does not progress the argument in any direction. You can't seriously tell me that you are happy with the state of the page at the moment? So what is this magic measuring stick you have for importance? Take something which is easily measurable like deaths in a disaster; you imply that a disaster is noteworthy only if it has a large number of deaths. So are you sure that if you have say ten disasters on this page that they were the ten with the most deaths? More people die in car crashes which you dismiss than in all the wars in the world - they tend to die in low numbers at each incident. So car crashes will never be mentioned then? I say that makes the page fail at the first hurdle - it doesn't give a reflection of important things going on in 2004.

I think Astrotrain is more honest than you. At least he admits that he's ranking countries according to how important he thinks they are to an English speaking audience. He may be wrong, but at least he's not taking the higher moral ground by hiding behind numbers and claiming to be unbiased.

The main problem seems to be about events which are very newsworthy in one particular place or sphere (e.g. followers of a particular sport). A good example would be (not from 2004) the murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. In Britain this had more news coverage than the Iraq war, but probably didn't create more than a ripple of interest anywhere else. Only 2 people died, so it fails on the number theory of importance; it is limited regionally so should it not be there? This is fine, but it will be very firmly lodged in the memories of 50 million or so British people and would appear to them as a glaring omission. That's not likely to happen because of the large number of British contributors to the project, but what of something which makes headlines in Beijing or Mexico or Moscow? So, whether you like it or not, the page is bound to be Anglo-American biased. Just don't slag Astrotrain off for doing what we're all doing.--Btljs

Btljs wrote: "whether you like it or not, the page is bound to be Anglo-American biased". That's a false and arrogant assertion. Wikipedia is interesting due to its international nature. The first sentence on the Wikipedia About page states "Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia written collaboratively by contributors from around the world". Again: There is a perfectly fine 2004 in the United Kingdom. TroelsArvin 10:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So what's this page then? 2004 by those who shout the loudest? Is a hurricane which kills 10 people in Florida of more historical importance than a train crash which kills 7 people in England? I only say what I see on the page (it's more Australio-Anglo-American really - which is what you would expect - I'd love someone to prove me wrong and come up with dozens of events in India where more than 10 people died - there must be thousands)

Also I don't see a 2004 in the USA page. Is this because everything which happens in the USA is broadcast around the world so becomes globally important? --Btljs

Btljs, You seem to have focus on events where more than x people die. Accidents and killings don't automatically qualify as important year-.... events. They do qualify if they have important consequences: An assassination in Sarajevo in 1914, for example.
About what goes into the 2004 page: That's what this discussion is all about: Trying to find some sort of consensus on the meaning of "importance". It's vital that the discussion is not derailed by strange "everything is important" arguments, or personal "I'm fascinated by royal families" obsessions.
About the missing 2004 in the US page: Anyone (including you) can establish such a page, but it hasn't been part of the discussion before. Thus, I think that your argument is rather polemic.
I look forward to returning to the topic of what important events are. But I'm afraid that the quality of the 2004 page and the discussion will not improve as long as some people 1) can't accept that the use of nation/subject-specific pages is a valid solution for some items, 2) can't accept that Wikipedia is international.
TroelsArvin 13:37, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excuse Me- I am just learning how to post a message here, but I have a small issue with the debate between Ford and the English fellow. I believe I have the right to speak as I am your unsuspecting audience.

I came to Wikipedia to conduct research on The John Company of England for a work that will be published. I really only had a few questions to answer, and the google search led me to the site. The information was great....I think. I think, therefore I am, but I really don't know if the information I received now is tainted because I read "disputed 2004" and clicked finding a whole debate now about whether Prince Harry's haircut is more important than an election in Indonesia. One socially conscience person likes to add information which might be important to researchers worldwide, while a patriotic person is interested in informing the world of events in his country. There is nothing wrong with either endeavor in itself, and both are needed, but it may suggest a major flaw in this wonderful concept.

Lack of red tape makes this site less costly, and helps it to be inclusive of many points of view. But lack of structure leads to/creates chaos. (Depending on whether you believe chaos is a place/event or an entity.) What one thinks is unimportant the other thinks is important. That is problematic to the integrity of the information provided which should be objective. Perhaps no one should be rewriting the posts of others if they are not an authority on the subject. For instance, The John Company. But as for the significance of 2004....ah we will only know which of these events will be of greatest significance as 2004 becomes more distant in history. Unless someone here is a soothsayer, and that could be, I adventure to say that no one is an authority on everything, especially how the future will treat current events and therefore while many can add, who can rightfully subtract? I believe that Ford is attempting to be serious about the integrity of this concept. And I am guilty in the experience that most serious researchers can go on and on about our favorite topics. However, when the philosophy becomes, "well you took away mine, so I will take away yours"...(and I honestly don't remember which of the messages of many posters gave me that impression) then someone like me, just hoping for insight into a particular historical event, may choose to look elsewhere for it. If wikipedia is to be believed as a serious source for information, under the current volunteer authority from anywhere structure then perhaps you might consider having draft and final draft versions of documents. This allows input from all, but provides some "actual" authority of a subject the ability to help wikipedia maintain a level of credibility. Perhaps new additions could be added in a different color, and a yearly review of documents by academia. My suggestion may not be the answer for a whole host of reasons I haven't thought of, but I do know that if I can't trust the information because of various squabbles or biases, or suspected biases, or I will skip the website when it comes up in google. — Objectiveresearcher. Nov 28 2004

Hey you know it was rather difficult to read your post...maybe you should consider seperating them into a few more paragraphs for easy reading... anyways...i have one quote for you:
  • 'Taking information from one author is plagiarism, taking information from many is research.' lol ;)
  • anyways no offense...welcome to Wikipedia ! =D — LegolasGreenleaf 02:02, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you Objectiveresearcher. I think you made the points I was trying to make but in a much clearer and more 'humble' way. I obviously hit a nerve with users like Ford and Tarvin but there didn't seem to be any constructive feedback i.e. what is the solution as opposed to continuing the endless argument.

I really like your idea of having different versions of the article without the normal Wikipedia response of simply creating more titles (e.g. 2004 for Prince Harry etc.) I know somebody's going to point out that you can look back over all edits in the page history but that's not quite the same thing.

I'll throw in some more ideas:

    • 2004 As it happens: a dynamic article of events as they happen but much summarised from the current events page. This should be 'frozen' when the year ends and subsequent edits called something else like '2004 Historical events'. Then in the future you can choose to look at what seemed important at the time AND what carried on seeming important.
    • The World in 2004 (see subheading on 1220: A method of giving an essence of what is happening in the world which doesn't necessarily have an 'event' which can be pinpointed to single date. e.g. Millionth person to die of AIDs; population of India passes a billion; annual increase in mobile phone ownership; in UK cards pass cash for purchases for the first time; number of dollar billionaires is X, Y% of them live in US, Europe they own X% of global wealth etc. etc.

Leaving things in is not 'an easy option' as Tarvin suggests. It's a much harder and more mature approach than 'my event is bigger than your event' which is prevailing.

  • 'But I am the prophet so don't believe me.' Roy Harper

--Btljs 9:39, 3 December 2004 (GMT)

NPOV inquiry

(Note: the following message was originally inserted by Brianjd at the top of the page. — Ford)

The NPOV section does not seem to have been updated for a while (I could have missed a reply). Can someone make it clear why the neutrality is still disputed, or remove the notice? Brianjd 08:45, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

The discussion is continuing under different headings below and a number of members, including myself and the original poster of the tag (Ford) still dispute the British-centric bias of the entries. The page has got somewhat better in the last few weeks, but I still have specific problems with Jan 27, May 19 and Sep 15. There is a wider debate on what should be included here, 'historical significance', 'world impact', 'is it important to X number of people/families' etc. The dispute is definately not over. Psychobabble 09:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Psychobabble is essentially correct, but the geographical bias is a little broader. The page favors western Europe above most of the world, and the Anglo-Saxon diaspora above all. Most of the world (I would judge) would see as trivial some of the things that are listed, and see as significant some of the things that are left out. And it cannot simply be a matter of one or two events, as long as the editing pattern remains what it has been.

I would ask that you add your comments to the end of the thread, as is customary. There was no need to call our attention to them, as you have done; regular readers here would have found them. You will also note that the heading you refer to was by no means the beginning of the NPOV discussion, which began in some respects in the archived material. If, as seems likely, you are a new visitor to the page, you should not make the mistake of assuming that you have followed the whole discussion on the matter just by reading that particular heading.
Ford 05:45, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

  • It is more the content of the page that some are disputing rather than the neutrality of the page (afterall it is hard to give a point of view when stating a specific event has occured). Astrotrain 17:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The choice of what to include and what not to include exhibits bias. Yes, the events actually took place; but then we are not disputing the factual accuracy of the page. The page does not present every event from the year, and we nearly all agree that events should be included because they are, in some way, more important than events that are not included. So the neutrality of the page’s point of view is truly the issue in dispute.
Ford 00:03, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

  • I thought the point of headings was so that a new visitor to a page could quickly locate information. If I see a "disputed" notice on an article, I want to be able to establish quickly why it is disputed. Brianjd 06:52, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

Too Many Negative Contents?

I think there's too much negative contents on this page. Almost in every four entries you can find a record about some deaths or accidents. o.O

Comments? — LegolasGreenleaf 05:43, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Most news is generally negative in nature. Since the removal of sporting events, it is likely that most entries will be negative. Most news programmes are negative. Astrotrain 14:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I should hope there will be more here than "the news", which tends to be things which are meaningful to everyone, or that everyone is interested in even though they are not very meaningful, and not necessarily the significant things. Brianjd

News by month

Why is "Dec" in italics? Brianjd

I have just seen Template:Uspresidentialelections - it appears that future things are put in italics. Well December is no longer in the future! Brianjd 09:48, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

I have just seen Template:Olympic Games, confirming my belief that this policy is silly. Brianjd

Colin Powell

Powell's resignation is not of immediate importance - he is still in office. I really don't see why that item deserves mention. --Jiang 22:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • It was a major news item in the US and abroad at the time, and the act of handing in his resignation notice is of importance. I say keep it. Average Earthman 12:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We don't list all major news items and what may be newswothy may not be of long term enclyclopedic value. Have our articles explained the signficiance of the date? If not, then I don't see it deserves mention. --Jiang 19:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that Powell's resignation is a notable event, because it highlights which part of US's foreign policy "schools" has won. And US foreign policy is certainly of global importance. TroelsArvin 13:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December attack on American consulate

Terrorists attack the American consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing several people.

When did this occur? Brianjd

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/07/jeddah.attack/index.html

That's when -wadehouston

Album releases not appropriate

Since I'm of the opinion that Mr Jackson is not exactly the pop figure he once was, I certainly wouldn't consider a release of a box-set album by him as sufficiently notable for this page - more a 2004 in music note. The deleted text is

  • November 17 - Michael Jackson releases his album The Ultimate Collection in the USA, featuring a 5-CD box set that spans over his entire career from 1969 to present.\

Yay or nay people? Average Earthman 12:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It's not notable enough to go on a worldwide yearly summary page. There is a 2004 in music that's perfect for it, though. *** Ponder 14:11, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
This album doesn't have its own article! Brianjd 08:14, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

China's $20 billion Investment in Argentina

Astrotrain, maybe this piece of information would help:

the source of this news was not of Chinese origin, but from the Associated Press. It is not a propaganda or some 'so-called' event, the deal was real.

If you want the link, i'll gladly provide it for you.

O btw, my argument on this being important is that probably in 20 years, the US will have China as its biggest ally, and would treat the UK like how Canada is treated now. (ie. 29% tax on softwood lumber without any negotiation; ban on all Canadian beef imports for over 2 years now when just one case was found; criticizing Canada not helping in the War on Terriosm when 4 Canadians were killed by American friendly fire in Afganistan, etc). Trust me, it will affect you. — LegolasGreenleaf 23:47, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • The announcement must ultimately be of Chinese origin as they are the investors. So the information came from China some how, unless the AP are now sping on China. I disagree with your assessment that China will be the USA's biggest ally, it is more likely they will be the USA's biggest enemy (arguably they are already). Besides, investing $20billion in Argentina, even if they actually do this, is unlikely to have significant effects. Every country invests in another country, items like this are just intended for show, and are usually of little substance. Astrotrain 15:24, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just because the news is from China does not disqualify it from being listed here. I really don't see the propaganda here. Not everything they say is "propaganda". Please don't remove things until there is consensus to remove--Jiang 00:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • the following 3 paragraphs is my reply to Astrotrain:
  • By saying 'it is more likely they will be the USA's biggest enemy', it is obviously that you do not know what is happening on the other side of the world from where the UK is located. Bush wants to get rid of some people he doesn't like, he already did in examples like that of Saddam Hussein, and sort of pursueing that Osama in Afganistan; He has long locked targets on that Kim Jung Yea II or whatever his name is in North Korea.
  • But knowing to aggressively solve the problem in North Korea is not the best option by any means, US has to reach out to China, South Korea and Japan, even Russia to form that so-called '6 country conference'. North Korea will not listen to the US no matter what, they know it's too dangerous for the US to attack some nation in East Asia, if they make any mistake they'll be frowned upon by current allies South Korea and Japan, and only to make a fool of itself in front of the Chinese.
  • that may seem to be a little out of the topic, but trust me, the communists in China has changed, more or less, toward a more liberal conservative ideaology, albeit that they still surpress the freedom of information and any kind of federal democracy. But they are by no means the likes of North Korea or Iraq. Over the centuries, it is always the Chinese who were invaded by foreigners; for a civilization of so long a history, they were not very adventurous in terms of exploring the outside world. Even their best overseas explorations to as far as Africa found in that of Zheng He was surpressed so much that nothing detailed was kept. Even now I believe it is the same, they have little intention of causing trouble elsewhere.
  • Anyways, the news did not come out of China, it was signed just before the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Santiago in South America. And, $20 billion is not just any investment, like i mentioned, it's more than 4% of the total deficit facing the Bush administration. Also, this aid is coming from a Third World Country. In any situation, $20 billion could get the entire royal family infinite amount of hair cuts or pies to be thrown-in-the-face. No insults intended. =) — (LegolasGreenleaf) InuYasha-Tessaiga 11:38, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

What I do know of the Chinese government is that they are one of the most despicable and barbaric regimes in the history of the planet, responsible for millions of deaths, torture and jailings. They are the natural enemy of the United States as they are the only economic and military threat that the USA currently faces, and the only threat which actually frightens the US Govt. But anyway, the reasons I am against this post is:

  • It is Chinese propoganda, and is unliely to ever materalise (I dount the Chinese could afford to see $20 billion flow from their fragile, corrupt and over hyped economy;
  • In any case, many countries sign investment and trade deals in any given year, and none of these are mentioned;
  • The entry is also POV written, as it suggest the existence of a Chinese strategy which is not offically confirmed. Astrotrain 12:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Astrotrain, you don't seem to be aware of the current state of the world economy. The Chinese could easily afford it - and they are currently the ones propping up the Dollar (look in the Business news section on BBC News if you don't believe me). If you looked up China on the CIA World Factbook, you'd find they state "Measured on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, China in 2003 stood as the second-largest economy in the world after the US". If you seriously think the Chinese economy is screwed, then the US is super screwed (the US government was borrowing 20 billion from Japanese and Chinese banks every 20 days or so earlier in the year). Average Earthman 15:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • you are right about the first part, i'm not sure if the US is borrowing that much ... then the president after bush will have to eat pizza every day lol
    • here's the interesting fact, with at least 1.2 billion people in mainland China, if everybody pays 10 dollars of tax every month, the state would have 10 x 1.2Billion x 12 = 144 Billion dollars to spend every year. Obviously with the input of the companies, you get way more than that, even if there are people who cheat and avoid paying taxes.
    • well, I can see why you think that China would lie and never meet their end of the agreement. It all begins with your hatred toward the old Chinese government. Alas, chill dude, the government of the Cultural Revolutions has changed drastically, Hu Jintao has visited an AIDs patient (this is probably the same magnitutde as if Bush declared himself as gay, but in the totally opposite direction, one is to be taken seriously, the other is to be laughed at hysterically then booted from the white house...) it's just nowhere near the level many of the western world's democracy.
    • No they are not the natural enemy of the US, their state leaders exchange visits on a regular basis, it's just that the differences between how the two countries are run might prove to be a barrier for many to accept that the communists are up to something good.
    • i will hate politics no matter what, but i do understand a few of the basics. &mdash (LegolasGreenleaf) InuYasha-Tessaiga 20:49, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not an economist, so I can't say if China's investment in Argentina is out of the ordinary. In a case like this where people express doubt about the importance, one way to solve the dispute is to have a look: Is there a Wikipedia article somehow describing the event? - I don't see one.

By the way—and on the other hand— I just read that the [IMF has agreed a loan of $10billon to Turkey]. If $10bn from an established funding institution is enough to make the news in BBC, then $20bn from a state to a state in a different part of the world could be said to be of importance. TroelsArvin 13:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Plane Crash in Uzbekistan

January 13 - An Uzbekistan Airways plane crashes in Uzbekistan's capital of Tashkent, killing 37.

I cannot find any evidence of notability. Brianjd

  • Clearly notable, should be restored. Astrotrain 15:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I stated above, if these were notable enough, it should at least have its own article. I don't see the point of listing things here if we dont have articles to expand on the issue--Jiang 22:31, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Most of the entires here do not have their own specific article. That in itself is not a basis for inclusion. I think it is highly notable that an aircraft crashes in the capital city of a large Asian country killing several people. Astrotrain 11:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is usually not the only place where a specific event is mentioned. If they dont have their own article, it should be mentioned in another article. Otherwise, the event can be assumed to be unimportant. --Jiang 13:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Placing an entry here is not an obligation to create a specific article for the entry, or indeed, ensure it is mentioned elsewhere also. Not appearing on Wikipedia does not merit an event unimportant. Astrotrain 13:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you try to link to a potential article then? Important events are encyclopedic, no? The fact that it has no other mention suggests that it is unimportant and that is my point--Jiang

House of Commons vote on University tuition top-up fees

January 27 - A House of Commons vote on University tuition top-up fees is narrowly won by the British Government. It is, however, the worst voting result for Tony Blair since he came to power in 1997.

Is this vote notable?

"Worst voting result"? Huh? If we are going to mention this, we have to mention every "worst voting result", don't we? Brianjd 11:39, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

I agree that this, and the Uzbekistan plane crash, aren't notable enough for the "central" 2004 page. The university tuition top-up fee could easily be moved to the British 2004 page, while there doesn't seem to be an obvious place where the plane crash event can be moved to. TroelsArvin 13:33, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The plane crash was already on 2004 in aviation. I moved the vote to 2004 in politics. Brianjd 11:48, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
  • The event is clearly notable, as a significant political event in a major G8 country. Astrotrain 15:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It has nothing do with Britain's economic or political standing in the world. It is a domestic issue. --Jiang 22:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - or at least if it's going to be kept, link to the article about tuition top-up fees. OH WAIT, THERE ISN'T ONE! Maybe it's unimportant! --SPUI 13:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agreed - I'm British, and fairly well-informed. This hasn't even caused a blip on my radar, so is certainly not important to the world in general. --weedom
It is important so I've reinstated it. The vote was significant because it looked like Tony would lose, which would have threatened the survival of his premiership. It is a domestic issue, but a very significant one indeed. Far more than say, the elections in Uruguay. Astrotrain 19:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It led to no consequence. Blair did not lose. That's done and it's not important.--Jiang 20:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So does anyone other than astrotrain think it should be there? --SPUI 15:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay why don't we stop all this editing-wars and first come to a conclusion about it, it's already taking up a lot of space on the server just to store copies of the 2004 page with 1 line of difference. All this commotion is not necessary. — InuYasha-Tessaiga 04:15, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Fathers 4 Justice House of Commons protest

May 19 - UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is hit with a purple flour bomb during a session of Prime Minister's Questions.

This event is notable (Psychobabble opposed it). It has its own article. It represents a successful attempt to interfere in the political process. It represents a significant security lapse (first the attacker got in, then everyone was evacuated - if it really was a chemical or biological attack, they should have contained anybody affected). Brianjd 12:03, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this and the one below. I can name three similar events (involving people dressed up as sheep, and two attempted citizens arrests) involving the Australian PM this year, and there was also the pseudo-attack on George W by two Australian senators in parliament - these types of domestic political stunts are completely routine, that the only ones mentioned are British is symptomatic of the Anglo bias of the page. Psychobabble 22:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Such events surely deserve to be covered somewhere. I can't find them. Brianjd 11:26, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
Why? Like I said, they're routine domestic disturbances, only slightly more serious than invasions at major sporting events. Obviously if a prominent leader was actually injured or it was a genuine attempt at doing harm, it would be noteworthy, but these kind of protests are just minor, fairly regular, political stunts. Psychobabble 02:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't call them "minor". People don't attack politicians (spelling?) for the sake of it. Brianjd 10:46, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
Have you read what I'm saying? These things happen, regularly, all over the world. People are passionate about all sorts of issues all the time and fairly often do some stunt that involves raiding parliament (or sporting or other public event) to show their passion. The only two that are mentioned here are British, which equals bias, and they're of such minor historical significance that even if we could include all of them from across the world they wouldn't be worth putting here. Psychobabble 01:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fox Hunting - House of Commons stormed

September 15 - The British House of Commons is stormed by a small group of protestors during a debate about fox hunting.

Psychobabble also opposed this. It does not have its own article, but again, I think it represents a significant security breach. Brianjd 12:07, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

There are small breaches of security somewhere almost daily. No. --YixilTesiphon 04:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some things to note

Just a note from an anonymous reader, but Colin Powell did not "resign" yet - he only announced his resignation, which will only take effect in January. It might seem like a minor point, but legally and politically there are important implications. Someone more familiar with how wikipedia works may want to correct this.

Furthermore, the selection of events is somewhat unusual. Some relatively minor events were included, while events I would consider more important internationally, such as the signing of the EU constitution, were not.


Powell's resignation was accepted by the President on November 12, 2004 (before the beginning of Bush's second term), but Powell will stay on until his replacement is confirmed. (Colin Powell)

So it appears that his resignation could take effect at any time, before or after January. Brianjd 11:18, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)


You are not the first to claim that the selection of events is unusual. That's why the neutrality is disputed. Brianjd 11:18, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Elections

Elections are to be held in 73 countries during 2004.

2004 is nearly over. This message needs to be updated:

Elections have been held in x countries and are to be held in (73 - x) countries during 2004.

But I don't know how many of those elections have been held yet! Brianjd 11:32, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)


Cleaning Up July

Hi there, just cleaned up July a little bit. I added some info regarding July 10 that I think is noteworthy and of interest. Also, I cut out a reference towards the end of July about some industrial accident in Belgium. Come on. I mean, we're all sorry that people died, but hundreds of thousands of people die every year in industrial accidents, what makes those few Belgians of particular note? Okay, thanks. These were probably really just cosmetic changes, but they needed to be done. [Jobu} December 18

NPOV, yet again

SimonP’s message, on deleting the disputed tag: “issue has not been discussed in a few days and the dispute is not large enough to merit a header on such an important page”. I am not really sure where to start with this. Just because we do not put up a new header every couple of days saying “Yep, neutrality still disputed!” doesn’t mean that the neutrality of the page is no longer disputed. And right here at the bottom of the page is Brianjd saying why the page is disputed: the inclusion and exclusion of items on the page, which represents a judgement on which events are notable, is biased, beyond the point where some of us feel we can leave the unsuspecting reader of the encyclopedia uninformed of the dispute. Brianjd noted that on December 18, and a few hours later SimonP comes along and states that it hasn’t been discussed in a few days. But just look at the edit history, if you think things have been settled. Hardly.

As for the dispute being too small to merit a header on such an important page, I strenuously object across the board. First, what determines whether a dispute is large or small? I think it a very serious dispute indeed. Second, the importance of the page suggests to me that it is even more important that the page be neutral, so that the more important a page, the smaller the dispute can be and still merit a warning tag. Third, the implication that, because it is an important page, we should be masking the dispute — presenting a façade to the unsuspecting reader — is, I hope, not intended, but that is certainly what it sounds like to me.

I would like to see the dispute resolved, but I have long felt that we are at an impasse, and I am not going to allow this page to be both edited from a strong bias and presented to readers as a legitimate, neutral encyclopedia article. I think at this point there are enough of us to shout down a particular editor (Astrotrain) if we wanted to; but then surely Astrotrain would feel the article was not neutral, so that would not actually solve the problem. The problem is the open-access format; and since it is better to have that sort of problem than to have no wikis at all, we would all, I think, prefer to live with the problem.
Ford 01:29, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of the NPOV header. It is not to inform editors that a page needs work, it is rather to warn readers that the information on the page should not be fully trusted. While this article is flawed, I don't think readers need to be warned off it. - SimonP 06:02, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ford. The neutrality of this article is disputed and, as a reader not an editor of this page, was very glad to find the NPOV tag and be directed to the talk page to see what the fuss was about. Wikipedia works really well this way. We should alert people to disagreements about content. It is an advantage to this format. - Trick 21:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • And I think, SimonP, that you have not even read my comments. Read the above; it is clearly about notifying readers, not editors. I mention readers three times as the target of the warning, and editors not once. On the other hand (and perhaps you did not mean this as it sounds), if you think the tag is meant to warn readers off the page, then perhaps it is you who misunderstands the purpose. I believe we are only cautioning readers in their use of the page. And finally, you will have missed it, but there is a reason why some of us are disputing the neutrality of the page, rather than the factual accuracy of the page. We think the information in the page is accurate and can be trusted, but the article offers a bias of judgement that cannot be trusted, and should therefore make readers wary.
    Ford 14:12, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

splitting up 2004

As I proposed a while ago, and given that actions speak louder than (lots of) words, I have created an embryonic The world in 2004 page. As the definition of the year 2004 is not disputed for neutrality (I hope) only the events, I strongly recommend the following:

1. 2004 becomes a page with the definition (leap year etc.) and links to all the events in 2004 pages (including the disputed main part of this page) which should be called something like 'Events_in_2004' and a link to 'The World in 2004' page (and any other 2004 pages).

To my mind this is much better given the huge range of contexts in which a link to 2004 occurs - some are talking about something which happened in 2004, some are using it to mark an anniversary, some just illustrating a point on a continuum. It certainly isn't very useful if they all link to a disputed page like this one.

Let me know what you think. Btljs 15:09, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)


Also, Ford: you may not like the mention of Jesus (or the Queen) but a definition of something must uniquely define it. You can't have any old leap year starting on Thursday being 2004.

User:Btljs

MER-A (Spirit)

January 3 - NASA's MER-A (Spirit) lands on Mars.

If the time is UTC, then it is January 4. However, the relevant "local time" (PST) (assuming that it is that time that is given in the article) is January 3. Which date should it be under? I would put it under January 4. Brianjd 10:52, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Missouri Murder on December the 18th

I may have taken the liberty prematurely of effacing the 2004 entry of this event, but it seems wholly irrelevant. Worldwide, atrocious slaughters occur on a seemingly constant basis. This deed, while dastardly, shouldn't be considered anything worthy of international recognition. Even through the killing was of an expectant mother, I still would relegate it to the realm of local news. I would advise whomever responsible to rethink its place among major, worldwide occurrences that have reshaped the world in which we live. Earthliberator 21:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • The event was reported worldwide, and the gruseome nature of the murder makes it a significant occurance in 2004. This page lists things people will find important and significant, therefore it should be re-included. Astrotrain 22:00, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree on the grounds of murder being a heinous act regardless of how or against whom (unless there are clear political or cultural implications) it's committed. For those who feel my objection is unreasonable, I'd like to stress that we cannot weigh more heavily this crime over other similar ones without causing the living victims of others a disservice. Thus, to include this incident is to advocate listing every committed murder since January 1st. I propose a vote on this matter. Earthliberator 04:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Needless to say, I find the inclusion of this event to be a total violation of any standard of notability. Earthliberator, you are right; sadly, this is nothing unusual from a global perspective, and we cannot list every death, unfortunate as each one is to those directly involved. But some editors have no sense of perspective, so your arguments will not succeed. Best of luck in the effort, though.
Ford 05:54, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

This is just mass media sensationalism. The best we can do is to not follow this sensationalism and stop listing everything that's hyped up. This thing hasn't even been hyped up that badly--Jiang 07:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I concur. Thousands of people perish around the world every month and we cannot publicize one while ignoring the rest of them. Furthermore, I don't think these local murders, however sensational, should constitute as encyclopedic knowledge.

Neutrality and the three-revert rule

The three-revert rule has the virtue of preventing a numerical minority, including a minority of one, from forcing through edits against the will of the majority. It prevents a single individual from dominating a page, if so few as two persons are in disagreement. For the record, Astrotrain has just violated the three-revert rule:

Number one
Number two
Number three
Number four

Everyone else editing the page may think that this argument between the two of us is silly, but I am abiding by the rule, and Astrotrain is not. Astrotrain has just reverted the honorific change four times in three hours and twenty-five minutes, which was made possible because SPUI and I have both removed the honorifics that Astrotrain has been inserting. It is also worth noting that these reverts of Astrotrain’s have mostly been unsummarized, which is generally viewed as an unwillingness to take responsibility for one’s actions, or an attempt to disguise them.

Astrotrain accuses me of not explaining my edit, even though I have done so time and again. These honorifics are not neutral. They are an endorsement of one government’s position about the relative worth of certain persons — in the present instance, Alice Windsor, Angus Ogilvy, and Alexandra Ogilvy. These persons are considered to be superior to the rest of us; in the case of Alice and Alexandra, to be quite literally “higher” than the rest of us. If the British government wishes to say so, it may. But the encyclopedia may not — not if it wishes to remain neutral. The honorifics do not serve to further identify the persons in question; they are not even part of the articles’ titles. They are Astrotrain’s royalist point of view. I am a republican, and while it seems that I am therefore in a minority in Wikipedia (with its celebrity-worshipping culture and neo-romantic nobility obsession), I think it is clear that the encyclopedia should not be taking sides in the debate between those of us who hold egalitarian beliefs, and those who genuinely believe that some persons are better than others by virtue of birth or the political sentiments of the British (or any other) government.
Ford 00:44, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Honofifics are a part of someone's legal name. Therefore it is perfectily neutral to use them, particularly in a formal encycolpedia. The titles in question are confered by English statue, and are the correct terms to use when describing these individuals. I think you are perhaps suffering from a sense of inferiority when viewing these titles. For instance, the style of Serene Highness is applied to the ruling Prince of Monaco, whether the said prince is peaceful or serene at all. Most countries of the world apply titles and styles to certain individuals. For instance the President of the United States is always addressed as "Mr President", judges as "your honour", bishops as "your excellency". Indeed the Pope's style of His Holliness is universally used. You may well object to an individual's right to be styled HRH, or Sir, however they still legally and universally retain these styles. It is more the case that you are not being neutral by allowing your self-confessed republican views to infulence your edits. Astrotrain 14:39, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed they are: in the United Kingdom. In the wider world, the impotent royalty of a democratic nation is both irrelevant and undeserving of honorifics. --YixilTesiphon 23:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Update: Five times, in nineteen hours, twenty-nine minutes.
Ford 15:04, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Update: Six times, in twenty hours, fourteen minutes.
Ford 15:39, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

  • You refuse to address my views, what gives you the right to decide how persons are styled here? Astrotrain 15:43, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Astrotrain has been blocked for 24 hours from the time of this notice. This is not an endorsement or disagreement with either viewpoint, just a neutral blocking after violation of the three revert rule. Please discuss this correctly when he returns. Thanks, violet/riga (t) 16:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Honorifics

Why do people keep removing the "HRH" and "Sir" for HRH Princess Alice, Sir Angus Ogilvy and HRH Princess Alexandra? In these cases it is because these people married into the Royal Family (or in Princess Alexandra's case, that she is a member of the Royal Family) that makes them notable. Using honorifics willy-nilly is not sensible (eg there is no need to refer to Ogilvy as "The Rt Hon Sir Angus Ogilvy" on this page), but in these instances it would be silly to omit them, jguk 16:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some interested parties including jguk and myself have been discussing the use of honorifics at Talk:December 2004 in Britain and Ireland. I'm against honorifics, but in this argument between Ford and Astrotrain, I think Ford is being over-zealous. Until I read the section above I thought there were two possible camps; now I see three.
  • Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent, Sir Bufton Tufton, President George W. Bush, Dear Leader Kim Jong-il, His Holiness Pope John Paul II
  • Queen Elizabeth II, Princess Alexandra of Kent, Sir Bufton Tufton, President George W. Bush, Kim Jong-il, Pope John Paul II
  • Elizabeth Windsor, Alexandra Ogilvy, Bufton Tufton, George Bush, Kim Jong-il, Karol Józef Wojtyła
Astrotrain appears to favour the first "maximalist" form, which I believe to be POV in many cases. Ford appears to favour the third, which I believe is going too far to the opposing POV. The second form recognises titles as matters of fact without passing judgement on them via honorifics, and calls people by their most familiar names. Unsurprisingly I favour this form. -- Avaragado 17:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The first is not the "maximalist" form. See List_of_Titles_and_Honours_of_Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom Geni 17:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clarification, Avaragado: I use the third position in my personal writing (as on talk pages), and would favor it for the encyclopedia as a whole, but I do not insist on it, and I do not remove titles like ‘queen’ or ‘princess’, except when they are redundant. Compare Jguk’s “HM Queen Juliana of the Netherland(s), former queen”. Incidentally, I think Jguk’s claim that mentioning ‘queen’ twice and calling her ‘HM’ confirms notability is wholly disingenuous. It adds nothing. It doesn’t tell us any more about this woman than does “Juliana, former queen of the Netherlands”. The notability assertion was just a ruse to put in more royalist wording.

I fully admit that ‘Elizabeth Windsor’, as I would have her called, is not a recognizable name to most persons, and that the encyclopedia can, neutrally, refer to her as ‘Queen Elizabeth II’, to make clear who she is and what function she plays in British society. Anything beyond that is completely unnecessary, and is inserted to endorse the royalist position. I accept that Wojtyła is the “pope” and has chosen to call himself ‘John Paul’, and since his decision does not force me to say something that I disbelieve, I gladly honor it. I will and do call him ‘John Paul’, then; but I will not call him ‘His Holiness’, because that expression has meaning, and I believe the meaning to be untrue.

So, we can call Alexandra Ogilvy ‘Princess Alexandra of Kent’ and still be basically neutral. But we cannot call her ‘Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra of Kent’ and still be neutral. Her husband, whose notability I dispute, is easily recognizable as Angus Ogilvy, and there is no reason to call him ‘Sir Angus Ogilvy’ except to endorse the British government’s position that he is somehow better than the rest of us. I admit to my egalitarian, republican point of view. I am not forcing it on the encyclopedia, however. I am simply insisting that the encyclopedia not take the opposite point of view.
Ford 17:54, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that by using these styles people are making value judgements on the individuals concerned - they aren't. Calling Tony Blair "The Right Honourable Tony Blair" isn't implying that he's particularly honourable (I happen to think that he's one of the most dishonourable people in the UK, but it wouldn't stop me calling him that), it's just an honorific that shows that he is a member of the Privy Council. If we were to write about "the extremely honourable Tony Blair", it would be a different matter, as that would indeed be making a judgement on his honour, but official styles are instantly recognisable as such by their capitalisation. Likewise, calling someone "His Royal Highness" isn't implying anything about how high they are - it's simply showing that that's their official style. And just as you can write about His Excellency The French Ambassador without implying that he's a particularly excellent person, you can write about Her Majesty The Queen of the United Kingdom without implying that she's a particularly majestic person. Proteus (Talk) 18:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In practice, titles such as "Her Majesty" are used only by royalists. Most NPOV publications, such as newspapers, refer to royalty merely by their title (e.g., "Queen Elizabeth II"), just as they refer to anyone else with a significant title (e.g., "President George W. Bush"). This is the template we should follow. "Queen" is descriptive, in that it tells us what she does; "Her Majesty" is honorific, and adds nothing to the article but a respectful tone that may or may not be warranted. If you say we should call Queen Elizabeth Her Royal Majesty, do you think we should call Kim Jong Il "Beloved Leader," or whatever he dictates that he should be called? --Simetrical 02:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There's a difference between official styles (which are merely placed before a name to show official status, and are easily identifiable and show no opinion on the qualities of the person concerned) and complete honorific names. Calling him "the Dear Leader" would be like calling the Pope "the Holy Father" (which I, as a Catholic, sometimes do, but which non-Catholics wouldn't) or calling Muhammad "the Prophet", i.e. it'd be inappropriate in an encyclopaedia. To demonstrate the difference, not being a Muslim, I wouldn't call Muhammad "the Prophet", because I don't think he is, but I'd have no problem calling the Dalai Lama "His Holiness", even though I'm not a Buddhist, because that's simply a style. Proteus (Talk) 11:15, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't buy it. Calling somebody "His Holiness" is no different than calling them "Holy Father." Both are formalized titles that nevertheless suggest something that is arguably inappropriate. "Queen" is inarguably an appropriate title for Elizabeth, since she is a queen; "Her Majesty," while not necessarily suggesting that she's majestic, does indicate a degree of respect that isn't appropriate in a NPOV encyclopedia. --Simetrical 19:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The His Holiness recognises the status of the Pope as an important religious leader, Holy Father states subordination of the individual to the Pope, or the Pope's rule. Therefore, non-Catholics etc would use the His Holines style but would usually not use Holy Father. It should be quite simple to recognise that. Astrotrain 20:58, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. I would never use the phrase His Holiness, not for the Pope, not for the Dalai Lama and I was raised a lay Buddhist (but not in the Tibetan school). I tend to use famous person's most recognizable name. Pope. Dalai Lama, Queen Elizabeth. Emperor Norton (see talk page there, jeez). And I feel this is most appropriate for a neutral point of view. A person's further titles should be part of the text of an article and not part of a reference. I'm sure Tony Blair has several titles but he is known most universally and simply as Prime Minister.


An idea

How about both Ford and Astrotrain are forbidden from editing this page, then seeing where things go. Perhaps then this can cease to be a political battleground and become an encyclopedia article. --YixilTesiphon 23:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You might as well just ban Astrotrain—Ford's views are shared by quite a few other people, and if Astrotrain leaves, honorifics et al. will be gone for good. I'm not sure that's an appropriate course of action, however. A vote on some of the major issues would be a better idea. --Simetrical 22:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well that would be silly as Astrotrain's views are share by quite a few other people too. Honorifics are used in Wikipedia not through a small group of users deliberately seeking pages out and inserting them, but writing articles normally. Honorifics are normal in countries are monarchies - so natural that many Wikipedians will use them. Returning to YixilTesiphon's comments, I'm sure it would do the page good if all main protagonists took a holiday from it, jguk 21:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, okay, that's true. But in this particular argument, it looks like Astrotrain is the only one aggressively re-adding the honorifics, while I'm pretty sure at least two people are removing them. —Simetrical 21:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually I removed unnecessary honorifics from the main entries section, but support the idea of retaining them for births/deaths, when the titles are necessary. I am not aggressively adding honorifics in any case. My main problem here is that the user Ford insists on adding an unnessary NPOV dispute, as he has done for other articles, when there is no POV problem anywhere on the page. Dispute on what should be included is not based on POV.

Despite this, I actually think that the 2004 page is superior to the other year pages, which are riddled with unneccessary entries and lists of unnotable births and deaths Astrotrain 22:37, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

No, because his POV is that honorifics are unnecessary, whereas yours is that they are. Thus you are supporting your POVs, which by definition is a POV dispute. --YixilTesiphon 00:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Given the stalemate in the NPOV discussion, I have altered the NPOV tag to the Long NPOV tag (per the NPOV dispute page guidance). Astrotrain 15:40, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Once again, if anybody is to be messing with that, it's not you or Ford. Being relatively new, I have no idea whether this was a good idea or not, but I ask that you and Ford both refrain from touching it. --YixilTesiphon 00:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, since I was the one who tagged it, the important thing is that Astrotrain not remove or alter it. If I were to remove it (which I won’t, under present circumstances), that would be more or less kosher, as an indication that I no longer disputed the neutrality of the article. And if I were to edit the article to make it neutral, and Astrotrain were then to tag the article for disputed neutrality, then it would be unacceptable for me to remove the tag. Of course, there might be other editors who would dispute the neutrality of the present edit if I were suddenly to stop caring.

Incidentally, I think the new tag is silly and unnecessary; I do not know why it even exists as a template. Anyone who reads the talk page knows perfectly well why this article is disputed, and the tag reads like yet another demand by Astrotrain that the whole thing be explained, for the millionth time.
Ford 01:17, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

I didn't remove the tag, I changed it to a more appropiate tag. It still notes the dispute of neutrality but invites users to list anything they think is POV. The old tag said "see talk page", but there is no current discussion of neutrality, therefore the NPOV guidance states the Long NPOV tag should be used.

And I would like to point out I have every right to alter the tag, the same as I have to edit any Wikipedia page. Astrotrain 16:01, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

You also have the right to convert to Scientology. That doesn't mean you should. --YixilTesiphon 20:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Both Ford and I have the right to alter this page, afterall we are engaged in a dispute over content, not enaging in vandalism. Astrotrain 18:47, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed you do. But perhaps it would be in the best interest of the community if both of you were to take a holiday from it (in the words of somebody who posted above) and allow the other members to sort it out. It can't be dominated by two people. --YixilTesiphon 03:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Christens vs ceremonially named

Regarding the article about Queen Elizabeth naming the Queen Mary - it was changed to ceremonially named as one Wikipedian found no evidence of a religious ceremony. Does the Head of the Church of England saying 'God bless her and all who sail in her' count as a religious ceremony? Average Earthman

It's immaterial. Christening doesn't have to be religious at all. Consider the quote given in the AHD definition 2a: christened the kitten "Snowball." No religious ceremony there. —Simetrical (talk) 23:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Christening is not limited to a religious ceremony. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, christen have a number of meanings and one of which is the following:
  • to name or dedicate (as a ship) by a ceremony suggestive of baptism
i think suggestive of baptism is a way of people wishing good luck to the ship as to hope and bless the ship to never to sink. Plus, you hear the word christening in news coverage everywhere when some important sea-vessels are first released into the oceans. I believe it is legitimate to use this word. However the contents under christen in wiki is purely religious, therefore maybe the link should not be pointed to that page. LG-犬夜叉 01:47, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)