Talk:2013/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

125th IOC Session

This could be an international event? It could be like a part of global session for winning a host city of 2020 Summer Olympics/Games of the XXXII Olympiad. ApprenticeFan ^work 18:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It will be an exciting event for those involved at the time, especially for the winners, but in the long term it will fade into obscurity. The Games themselves are the notable event. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 January 2013

23rd November 2013- The long running British science fiction television show, Doctor Who, celebrates its 50th Anniversary on BBC 1 176.24.25.147 (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Exclude - this page is not for trivia, including various anniversaries. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Exlcude - not even suitable for "... in televsion" or "... in the UK". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: per above responses. Although it is unlikely, if later consensus contradicts these responses I will not object to addition of this information. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Holidays 2013: Immaculate Conception

A few days ago, I changed the date of Immaculate Conception from 8 December to 9 December, and gave a source to site it. The table of liturgical days (the source I provided) indicated that a Sunday of Advent takes precedence, and as 8 December 2013 is a Sunday it takes precedence over the Immaculate Conception, which therefore needs to be shifted to 9 December - this is what happens in 2013. This edit was reverted; although interestingly the source I provided was left there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.cats2004 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a celebration, not a holiday. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the differing usage of the word holiday around the world, one could argue that from the perspective of many people (certainly for me as an Australian where a holiday only means time away from work, school or other normal occupation) there are very few religious holidays. Most are more correctly called celebrations or commemorations. HiLo48 (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

How come there are no Events yet?

For all of the years from 2005 to 2013, every single year except for 2012 has at least 1 event listed by January 5. It is now January 5, and we still have NO events listed yet! I sure hope we don't have a repeat of what happened in 2012. Seriously! I mean, the 2012 article had the least events of any Recent Year article, and I feel that, sadly, 2013 will likely share the same fate. SuperHero2111 (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The criterion for populating this list is importance, not uniform distribution of events in time. How come there are no events yet? It's simple - nothing noteworthy happened yet. If you think that something did, then propose the inclusion. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

NASA's Venus In-Situ Explorer mission to Venus

I've researched all that I could to source this entry, but have found none. NASA's website mentions it in their "New Frontiers" program on their website, but the year it will happen is not confirmed, only that the program itself began this year. I think it's safe for its removal. — ^Wylie_Coyote 18:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggested January event

• January 1 – At least 60 people are killed and more than 200 injured in a stampede during a New Year's fireworks celebration near the Stade Félix Houphouët-Boigny in Abidjan, Ivory Coast.[1][2][3]

Suggest listing for the number killed and injured, the date and its celebratory tragedy, and its global coverage. If listed, I will fix the citations. — ^Wylie_Coyote 19:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

EXLUDE - minor local event--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Exclude - this event has no international notability. That it was reported my some media sources outside Cote D'Ivoire does not change the fact that it had no relevance to the rest of the world. 188.29.77.65 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mali

where is the Mali? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.252.7.30 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

2012#March 94.197.167.162 (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I also believe that the French intervention in Mali is notable enough for inclusion on this article. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Several countries are involved in the Northern Mali conflict. I don't think that we mention on year articles each time another country joins in. 92.40.210.188 (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

We did for Libya in 2011. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

David R. Ellis

He meets the WP:RY minimum guideline but his English article is not substantial and all the non-English ones are stubs/clones. His notability seems to rest on one film (Snakes on a Plane) as his article wasn't created until after that. I think he should be Excluded as insufficient;y notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

already argued for Harry Carey, Jr. and got shot down (rediculous) - Ellis article at IMDB is substantial i say INCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet again Derby continues his dictatorship upon RY articles. There was not even time for discussion before it was removed, in complete violation of WP:AGF. Your argument that he was notable only for Snakes on a Plane is ridiculous, if you actually looked at the article, he was involved in several fairly well known movies such as the Final Destination franchise. He obviously meets international notability and his removal is just silly, as are most decisions on this page undertaken by a certain collective of obstructive editors. Include --MarcZimmer (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think he should be included. He meets the WP:RY minimum guideline, he has a substantial entry on IMDb, and he is the director of several well-known films. So, I do think that he should be included. SuperHero2111 (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no consensus. I would lean again inclusion, but I'm not going to !vote here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

He directed Cellular, Snakes on a Plane and two Final Destination films. I think that makes him sufficiently internationally notable to be included. 188.29.77.65 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Include - 16 other translations, no matter their size. Stop the lording! — ^Wylie_Coyote 21:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael Winner

Currently has 12 non-English articles, but two of those (Latin and Ukrainian) were created after his death, and Swedish one has only one line. I would like to ask other editors if his name should be included on "Deaths". Thanks ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that his career is clearly more notable than that of David R. Ellis, and the quality of non-English articles in general reflects this, it would seem obvious that he is should be included. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Winner is easily important enough to include. He made many notable films in the UK and the US. 92.41.102.207 (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

First paragraph

This is maybe (most probably) not specific to this page, but ... I think concerning the first words,

2013 (MMXIII) is a common year that started on a Tuesday and is the current year.

In the Gregorian calendar, it is the 2013th year ...

the "In the Gregorian..." applies in particular to " started on a Tuesday", and therefore should come earlier. — MFH:Talk 19:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure where this should be mentioned, but 2013 is the first year since 1432 that is a permutation of four-consecutive integers. (0,1,2,3) in the case of 2013, and (1,2,3,4) in the case of 1432. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystykmoo (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ed Koch

What notability does he have outside the United States? 94.197.97.212 (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently enough that there are articles about him in 20 non-English-language Wikipedias. Favonian (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

And that was before his death.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't show notability outside the US, nor does the content of his article. Him being of interest to millions of Americans, including German-Americans, Italian-Americans etc is the probable reason for the otherwise inexplicably large number of Wikipedia articles about him. Many people with articles in many languages have been excluded from the Deaths section because they were notable in only one country. 94.197.171.78 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hardly hear that German Americans speak, read, write German language, so as Italian Americans, or any other Americans with different race origins. Or even some people do, such people are not really concerned whatever or whoever popular among English-speaking Americans, such as him. If you think as you stated, you need to prove that he was not notable outside of US at all with reliable sources.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines at WP:RY were established to avoid this kind of subjective versus objective argument. The guidelines, agreed by consensus, are that a minimum of 9 non-English wiki articles is usually enough to establish international notability. That Koch had 20 such articles before his death indicates that his international notability is considerably greater than the majority of deaths included in recent year articles. To claim that such articles were created by Americans using foreign languages is highly subjective and unless you can WP:PROVEIT you are wasting peoples time with this argument. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Nine non-English language articles is merely a guideline. It isn't set in stone as the line between exclusion and inclusion. Likewise some internationally notable people have been included despite them not having 'enough' articles. Although, for example, Italian-Americans usually speak English most of the time, many of them speak Italian to their grandparents etc. It's not rare for Americans to know the language of their ancestors. Many languages does not prove notability outside the US. The vast majority of people outside the US have never heard of Koch and his death is not on the front pages of newspapers around the world. A person has to be internationally notable to be included in the Deaths section. If Koch is notable outside the US, that should be shown in his article. If he isn't, he should not be included. He was very notable in the US, but appears to have no notability outside the US. Try finding non-Americans elsewhere than Wikipedia who have heard of Koch. Try telling non-Americans in Europe, Africa, Asia etc that Ed Koch has died and see the blank/puzzled look on their faces and their replies of "who"? When you tell them who he was, they still won't be interested. 94.197.171.78 (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It is common for influential American politicians to get noted by interested foreigners, even if they're not known to wide masses. His outspoken stance towards Israel, for example, would fall neatly under international notability for a person of his position.

As for criteria themselves, you're welcome to suggest better (=more objective ones) if you disagree with interwikis. Guesswork about Americans of foreign origin won't cut it. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

His pro-Israel views would be internationally notable only if they had an actual effect on Israel, the US Government's relations with Israel or on a third country's relations with Israel. If they did, that should be stated in the article. All there is the article about his pro-Israel stance is that he was 'hawkish', opposed Jesse Jackson and said that Barack Obama would be bad for US-Israel relations. 92.41.168.213 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

His influence is recognized by the Israeli ([4]). — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Kiss nightclub fire

• January 27 – The Kiss nightclub fire in Santa Maria, Brazil kills 233.

INCLUDE 3rd worst (by number of lives lost) nightclub fire in world history List of nightclub fires--68.231.15.56 (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Leaning towards exclude. It was a local event and not the worst of its kind. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

INCLUDE in agreement with user 68.231.15.56. Newone2012 (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Exclude - domestic event. A high death toll and/or how it compares to other disasters does not make it eligible for inclusion. Year articles are for internationally notable events. Jim Michael (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

you are flat out wrong - it is eligible by the process you have just voted on - which is "consensus"--68.231.15.56 (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

also again you are in error to say it is a local event - i ask again (as i have done on previous preventable accidents) here on these "year in" talk page - You dont think other countries have sent fire department type inspectors to make sure this never occurs in their countries?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless someone can provide reliable sources stating that authorities in other countries have taken action as a result of this fire, then it is nothing more than speculation. It is quite common for a government to change a law or bring in a new law in response to events in its own country, but rare for them to do so in response to events in another country.

here is the flaw in your arguement about no coverage = no response - one of the biggest problems with the liberal biased news is "bling" (if you have not figurered out yet that holloywood-types run the news just like any other entertainment, i feel sorry for you) - when a fire happens it could be the smallest thing on the face of the earth, but if they have video footage of it, and on the same day 3 physicans discover a better survival rate drug for prostate cancer - which one gets shown on the news ... which one gets the coverage ... why of course the showy one! things like bureacratic international fire inpsectors having conferences to discuss ways to prevent further loss of life - are you kidding me to thing the "bling" news will cover that? - does that mean that it never happened just cause you cannot find a USA today webnews page proving it exists?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that not only does USA Today coverage not exist, neither does (apparently) any other kind of coverage. You can easily prove "bureacratic international fire inpsectors having conferences" by providing links to their websites or reports, so speculating that they "must have taken place somewhere" and pointing fingers at biased media is really not going to cut it. Not in the age of instant accessibility of all kinds of information over the internet.

So I still lean towards exclusion - being a purely domestic event is not the only criteria for exclusion/inclusion, but this one is also not exceptional by any other criteria. It's close, though, so I will understand if there's a decision to include at the end, especially since not much has happened in january this year. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Every time people are killed in a fire, flood, earthquake, shooting or bombing - someone adds it to the current Year article. There is no evidence that this fire has had any effect on any country other than Brazil - hence it is a domestic event. Compare this to In Aménas hostage crisis - that is a notable international event. As with the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the Brazil fire has had no effect on the laws/policy outside the country in which it occured - it has not yet even had any effect on the laws of the country in which it did occur. Jim Michael (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

since it is 3rd worst, not the worst-ever, and unlikely a kind of terrorist attack, should be considered as a local event, thus exclude.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Include being a purely domestic event is only one criteria for possible exclusion/inclusion. The scale of this event is historically significant in international terms. If being a purely domestic event meant automatic exclusion it would need to be applied to every Recent Year article, and probably every Year article. Try that and see what happens! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

More Mayan prophesy

• March 31 - The final (20th) day (Ahau) of the final (13th) Tzolk'in calendar cycle (13 Ahau). It is a Mayan prophesy that "at the time of the 13th b'ak'tun and 13 Ahau will be the return of our Ancestors - the return of the men of wisdom." The closing of the Long Count Calendar on December 21st 2012 was 4 Ahau.

someone tried to add this, can i get a vote to EXCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a vote. We don't vote here. But a post of very strong agreement. It's unsourced, tabloid nonsense. It will provide filler for some shallow current affairs programs and trashy magazines. It doesn't belong here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Zhuang Zedong

I reverted edits by multiple editors to add his name on Deaths, because he has 9 non-English articles as of now, and 3 out of those (Spanish, Vietnamese, and Welsh) were created after his death. I checked if his name could be added right after his death was reported, but found out that there were insufficient numbers of non-English articles available back then, and did not do so.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right, although I do feel that he could be included anyway because of his role in relations between superpowers - at least judging by the article itself, I don't know how important he actually was. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 Russian meteor event and 2012 DA14

The meteor is probably the most significant such event since the 1908 Tunguska event. (I haven't found that in the news, but I believe it to be the case.)

As pointed out in the article, 2012 DA14 is the "closest approach for a known object of such size". Now, since size is a variable, this might not be a notable fact, but there's something there.

I lean toward inclusion of both. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I say INCLUDE but only because the amount of people injured was so great - how often can anyone say over 1000 people are injured by broken glass - not because the event rivals 1908 - they are light years apart in that aspect - it only "seems" because it also happened in Russia - the magnitudes are vastly different - most such event take place over the 3/4 of the earth that is covered by the sea and never even witnessed - thus not reported - you say that you believe something well I believe this that such events probably take place every couple of years and over water and thus no one sees them - as for the other event it is notable because it is the closest severe damage causer recorded in history - there may have been others in the last 5000 years but without telescopic observation no one knew so thus it is the worst in recorded history--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

An asteroid missing earth by over 17,000 miles should certainly not be included. It did not do anything to Earth. There was no damage caused, there were no evacuations and nothing was cancelled because of it. It was many times too far away to affect air traffic, let alone anything on the ground. 94.196.169.138 (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

this goes to show you have absolutely no knowledge of science -17,000 miles means your heart should have stopped at how close that is too earth in matters of life and death--68.231.15.56 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

IP User 94.196.169.138, you apparently do not have any information or background on this asteroid as you have created a very false statement. As stated in WP:YEARS, world records and other worldly events CAN be added to articles such as these. To tell you straight forward, this is the closest asteroid fly-by in modern history, 17,000 miles from the Earth's surface is a world record. So tell me exactly, how is an extraterrestrial body that created a WORLD record and has the power to destroy life on Earth, not an internationally based thing? Of course there was no evacuations or airline delays, if it was that close, it would strike Earth. Also, NASA and other space programs would have been monitoring this thing for several months or even years if it had the high possibility to strike Earth. So, your statement basically states that a world record holder cannot be added to this article, which isn't true. ST✪12 20:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

World records can be added if they are notable enough, something is not automatically eligible for inclusion here merely because it is a record. Its distance from Earth was over twice the diameter of Earth. This article is about world events that have had had a major effect on the world. This asteroid had no effect whatsoever. It is on 2013 in science, where it belongs. 94.197.200.103 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

INCLUDE - Russian meteor only - I think that it would be safe to say that the Russian meteor event could be added to the article based on how it did have an impact, especally in Russia, in addition to how rare a natural disaster similar to it has occurred, about 100 years ago since something similar happened. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

These articles don't provide good information anymore

I can't stand these articles anymore. The rules for inclusion are so strict now that they no longer provide good information. Only one entry for the entire year thus far? There were a lot more notable events in the year than just that hostage situation. These articles and their rules are no longer encyclopedic, informative, or notable. (Tigerghost (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC))

I completely agree with you. These articles are starting to become worthless. Information is present only on the rarest of occasions. More information needs to be added or it'll get marked as a "stub article" and people will visit this less and less. They will most likely look at the specific country articles to find the information they need. It should be okay to add tragedies and disasters if it's becoming more and more well known. If we exclude it, we're excluding people that need that information. ST✪12 20:15, 16 February 2013

Recent year articles are for internationally notable events, not for listing disasters, which are at: List of floods, Lists of earthquakes, List of fires etc. People who are looking for nation-specific events can finds the relevant articles via the box towards the top-right of the article. 188.29.75.21 (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to take this page back we should start a discussion on the recent years page protesting it as a useless and obstructive policy and force it to be rewritten. --99.251.252.217 (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you might be looking at the wrong article. As we know more and more history, the longer a page would get for such a topic. For example, compare 1013, 1513, and 2013 together. You should see more information in 1513, than 1013 due to a lower amount of records, and 2013 for the reason that we do not know everything that will happen yet. However, as we progress into 2013, we will know about a lot of events and such. In fact, too many for this article to hold by the end of the year. So, the article gets split into "(Year) by topic" articles, which is in the upper right section of the page. 1013 contains, ignoring red links, four such topics, 1513 contains eleven, and 2013 already contains 76 such articles. In short, if you are looking for something, look through the "(Year) by topic" section to see if it would be there. (News by month or by place should be a good location to search general information. In addition, 188.29.75.21 did already mention most of this, but I thought that this might still help.) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

February events

There are 3 events posted, but all deleted by Arthur RubinUser:DerbyCountyinNZ, requesting consensus and proof of "historic notability".

• 2013 North Korean nuclear test - proved to be conducted first time in 4 years, which was detected by several different international organizations, followed by the immediate reactions by surrounding nations, urgent security meeting of United Nations Security Council, and condemnations by dozens of different nations.

• 2013 Russian meteor event - as noted on the article, it is the largest recorded object encountered by Earth since the 1908 Tunguska event and the only known such event to result in a large number of casualties.

• 2012 DA14 - also noted on the article, it was a record close approach for a known object of this size. It is unrelated to the Russian meteor.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Add: Um, how is the closest asteroid fly-by in modern history not internationally important if it affected the entire world? This shouldn't need to be brought on to the talk page to reach a consensus as it is a WORLD record holder. We need to be a little more practical about these events and when they should be added to the article. The Russian Meteor event was a rare event that happened, but it's not the first time that has happened in Russia or anywhere in the world. The 2013 North Korean nuclear test is a "?" for me. But the 2012 DA14 asteroid world record approach needs to be added. ST✪12 17:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It didn't "affect the entire world". The opposite is true - it had no effect on the world whatsoever. 94.197.200.103 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Readd: Arthur Rubin clearly violated WP:AGF, there is plenty of case for adding the North Korean nuclear test, and 2013 Russian meteor event especially. The meteor one has an especially strong case as it is the largest confirmed meteorite ever observed to have collided with Earth, outside the still unclear Tunguska event. --MarcZimmer (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

you say that the meteor is unrelated I say the jury is out on that one - masses in space have gravity and they move about with shepards in the Lagrangian points around them - thus it could have been a shepard--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Readd all; we could discuss long-term importance of this particular nuclear test (although it unquestionably contributed quite some tension to international relations), but the meteorite events are both one-in-a-hundred-years-type events (hopefully). — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Please check the logs. I didn't delete the astromonical ones. I don't think I deleted North Korea, although I don't think it is notable. I argued in favor of inclusion of the astronomical ones (but not any alleged connection) in the section above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

My apology, it was my mistake, thus amended.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Why these events can be considered WP:NEWS rather than historically significant:

1. North Korea conducts a nuclear test (even if it has been 4 years since the last one this is not unusual in itself), leading to a UN Security Council meeting (again) and condemnation by various nations (again) which so far have achieved precisely nothing (again). IF North Korea decides on the basis of the response to this test to stop further testing that would be historically notable as would a more active response by the Security Council or some other nation.
2. Russian meteor event. No deaths, no major damage, effect limited to a single country. In short a notable astronomical event suitable for 2013 in science (or some more specific Year in Astronomy type article). IF there had been a large number of deaths or deaths in multiple countries or widespread damage (similar to, say, an earthquake) in multiple countries then it would be historically notable.
3. 2012 DA14. A near miss with no effect whatsoever on anybody. No satellites taken out, no atmospheric or terrestrial effects, no widespread panic. A rare astronomical event appropriate for 2013 in science as above. As a sidenote I have heard a news report stating explicitly that this event was NOT connected in any way with the Russian meteor shower.

DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Derby is full of crap as usual. The largest ever verified meteroid impact on Earth is a little more than simple news trivia. Doesn't have to kill people to be notable. Just goes to show you lack the ability to judge context on anything. --MarcZimmer (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And yet more proof that any idiot can edit wikipedia! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The June section on 1908 already has a previous event about a meteor "hitting" Russia already included which had less of an impact than this. While that does not count as an inclusion due to OtherStuff, I believe that this is notable enough due to the numerous casualties and damage done by a natural disaster, along with a response to try to prevent meteoroids from hitting the Earth in the future. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

1908 isn't a recent year, hence the inclusion criteria are different. 188.29.75.21 (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I believe the astronomical events are notable enough due to their rarity, even if they caused no casualties. This year will undoubtedly be remembered as the one in which we had a close encounter with a potential city killer and the second event which is the first of its kind ever to cause widespread injury. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Outside of the scientific community, there is no way that this year will be remembered as the year of these asteroids. The Pope's resignation has received far more media coverage and is being talked about far more. Can you think of any year which is best known for an asteroid/meteor hitting or missing Earth? 188.29.26.104 (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The only way that a nuclear test should be included is if it results in an official international trade embargo or military action. The usual condemnation by politicians and it being mentioned at conferences is not sufficient. 188.29.13.109 (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you think of any year which is best known for an asteroid/meteor hitting or missing Earth? You mean apart from 1908? Otherwise no, because nothing like that has ever happened in modern history. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that that is what most people think of when they think of 1908! The possibility that the Tanguska event was caused by a meteor wasn't proposed until 1930 and not generally accepted until the 1960s, and there was no youtube for them to watch it on. In fact, before Tanguska was brought up with the 2013 events I doubt most people these days could name anything that happened in 1908 and I suspect only a small proportion would even know about Tanguska let alone name it as the first event they would think of! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tunguska event is infamous for being a rare, but chilling reminder of the humanity's vulnerability, and the February 15 events are comparable in magnitude. The fact that 51 or larger % of the general population doesn't care is beside the point here. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

About North Korea: would tightened sanctions by the EU constitute sufficient notability for inclusion? How about precautionary sanctions imposed by the USA in january when the test has only been announced? — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Comet ISON

• November 28 - Comet ISON passes to within 1,100,000 miles of the Sun and will be visible during the day to the naked eye from Earth.

INCLUDE - typically you cannot see comets in daytime - i have never heard of such a thing - was Halley's Comet in 1910 visible? - sounds very rare to me but have to have the astronomy scientists chime in.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Around the time the comet reaches its perihelion on 28 November, it may become extremely bright if it remains intact, probably reaching a negative magnitude. It may briefly become brighter than the full Moon. It is expected to be brightest around the time it is closest to the sun; however, it may be less than 1° from the Sun at its closest, making it difficult to see against the sun's glare. --68.231.15.56 (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

from sky and telescope - "Moreover, its orbit bears striking similarity to that of the Great Comet of 1680, a dazzler with a very long tail so bright that that reportedly could be seen in daylight." - http://www.skyandtelescope.com/community/skyblog/observingblog/A-Dream-Comet-Heading-Our-Way-171521041.html

--68.231.15.56 (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Exclude An event which might be significant for people interested in astronomy but otherwise just a NEWS item of negligible historical significance, as with most other astronomical events which are hyped up before they happen and are forgotten about almost immediately afterwards. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 meat adulteration scandal

Is the horse meat scandal notable enough to be placed in this article or is it too centred in the British Isles to be included? Pro66 (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it could be added, but I would like to see it on the 2013 in the United Kingdom article first before adding it here since it is an event in the UK. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

To be precise, the scandal has already spread across Europe (example), but I think we should wait if anything significant comes out of it beside food recall. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

So, what exactly does this scandal involve? Someone deceiving customers. That happens all the time. People feeling yuck because they ate horse. Hardly earth shattering. Argentineans have been eating horse for centuries. Possible health risks. Well, maybe, but has anyone died yet? I don't think so. This "scandal" is just wonderful tabloid pap. Not really a major event at all. HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 Luxor hot air balloon crash

I would like to ask other editors if the subject incident could be included, since it

• was the deadliest hot air balloon crash in history, although the number of fatalities (19) is comparably smaller than airplane crashes, and
• involved people from 3 different continents (Africa, Asia, and Europe)

---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

EXCLUDE - to me it is just as well a plane crash "air disaster" with few deaths--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Include on 2013 in Egypt - I would think that it should be included on the 2013 in Eqypt article before it is added here. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Mokhtar Belmokhtar

I guess his death is notable enough since he was the leader of the terrorist group which caused In Amenas hostage crisis in January, although he has way less than 10 non-English articles.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Mokhtar Belmokhtar at Wikidata d:q3275982 = only 3 non english at death - this crowd of editors will never accept that--68.231.15.56 (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E? The event is notable, but I see no reason to override WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Mediterranean diet and again science and medicine appear to have no value to world article

• February 25 – A study from Spain published in the New England Journal of Medicine finds that following a Mediterranean diet high in olive oil, nuts, fish and fresh fruits and vegetables reduces the risk of heart disease. Patients were followed with either a Mediterranean or standard low-fat diet for five years.ReutersPrimary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet

INCLUDE - last year i tried to add a medicine article that was significant but was ruled (goofy that it was to do so) as small sample space (few participants) and rare disease. This is farthest from the truth this time. NEARLY ALL HUMAN BEINGS struggle against heart disease and stroke. This study had nearly 300 patients. Again, as in the previous year, the study was stopped prematurely due to the obvious overwhelming usefullness to medicine and thus all mankind - it would have been criminal malpractice to continue the study leaving the control group untreated by the new findings. Over in the daily articles an administrator shortsightedly removed the second sentence from this addition thinking it was unnecessary. This is farthest from the truth - it is exactly why the study is so profound. The study scientificly proved that the new best diet was 30%! better at saving lives then the old best diet - i cannot overemphize the importance of this - without the second sentence the reader would inappropriately believe that the new diet was ONLY 30% BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE DIET FOUND IN SPAIN - the diet is actually 30% better than THE BEST DIET ALREADY KNOWN TO MAN.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Exclude Just one of MANY health/diet/medicine announcements made every year. No particular importance/impact can be attached to this over any of the others. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Please dont get mad at me but ... and from that Derby I can tell that you have absolutely no concept of medicine--68.231.15.56 (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Derby here, just another one of studies that show slight health benefit of some particular lifestyle choice, such studies are getting published by the dozen each year. And not that proving health impact of the mediterranean diet is anything new - see [5], [6], [7] etc.). — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Exclude. Even though it is not particularly significant, it also doesn't have a specific date. Date of announcement? Date of publication? Date of receipt by the journal? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
• Possible include on 2013 in science - I think that this is the wrong place for such an addition. I think that it would be better to see if it could be added to the 2013 in science article. --204.106.251.214 (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be a much better option, although I'm not sure it's even significant enough for that. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Too many politican pictures

Chavez's death means we now have three politican pictures in a row in the deaths section, we really need to review and balance this out, I would keep Chavez of course 81.135.133.254 (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Glaser would be a better choice for February, IMO. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 March 2013

Bonnie Franklin - American Actress; 1944-2013 72.211.132.51 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - local TV celebrity without any serious international notability (only 2 foreign-language links in the article), included in 2013 in the United States. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Cyprus rejects the bailout

I think this development is more important than the agreement itself, perhaps we should move information of this information to the 19th of March with some background. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

in my mind it was a transcient event - useless for inclusion - if and only if it had passed AND if and only if any other country in the world had followed with the same measure - yes, then i would argue for inclusion.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

War of 1812 anniversary

On November 5th of last year, I added The War of 1812 in the June portion of this page, but it was deleted. Why hasnt it been added at least to the "predicted and scheduled events" section??!! There's an entire wikipedia page dedicated to it for crying out loud!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812_Bicentennial WHY HASNT IT BEEN ADDED!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Packinheat2u (talk • contribs) 05:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Anniversaries are normally insufficiently notable for inclusion. There is nothing in War of 1812 Bicentennial to indicate that an exception should be made in this case (despite the fact that the War started in June 1812 the article has been virtually static and is actually now outdated). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

To clarify a common confounding: the war was an important event, the anniversary by itself isn't. That's why an entry belongs to the page 1812, not this one. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense Yerpo, since the entire point of the anniversary is to commemorate that "important event".--Packinheat2u (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, what that means is that, if the anniversary is to be mentioned, it should be in 1812 or 1813, not in 2013. It has been the case for some time that anniversaries have not been listed unless the commemoration was independently notable, but it appears it hasn't been written in WP:YEARS or WP:RY. I've requested the addition in WP:YEARS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course it makes sense. We're talking about two events here: the war and its commemoration. One is important, the other one isn't. Understandable now? — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"WHY HASNT IT BEEN ADDED!!!" - This CAPS lock structure is a little dramatic dont you think? Thus, instead it worries me that your arguement is not very sound and you are trying to scam us.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If we start including anniversaries of important events, we should decide which events and which anniversaries. If we include all anniversaries of all important events, there would be more anniversaries of past events in this article than actual events of this year. And that's not point of year articles, isn't it? If someone wants to know what happened 200 years ago, they can go and check from 1813 80.223.252.10 (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality of foreign articles for Chinua Achebe

This looks to be one of those articles with ALL foreign language articles auto-created (they exist from the first edit of the English article). This makes it difficult to assess whether he genuinely meets the WP:RY criteria. Thoughts? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

personal testamonial - but "Cry the Beloved Country" and "Things Fall Apart" are the only works from Africa i have read--68.231.15.56 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality of foreign articles for Richard Griffiths

• "This looks to be one of those articles with ALL foreign language articles auto-created (they exist from the first edit of the English article). This makes it difficult to assess whether he genuinely meets the WP:RY criteria."

The same issue with Richard Griffiths, though I suspect his association with Harry Potter would mean he would pass the WP:RY minimum anyway. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

should probably debate the merits of notability in separate sections--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Annette Funicello

Does she meet the criteria for inclusion? GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Although she meets the WP:RY minimum the non-English articles are mostly stubs/clones of the English one with virtually no local citations and there is nothing in her bio which suggests she was particularly notable outside the US. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

An Australian here. She was pretty popular among me and my peers back in the 1950s and 60s. Surely she would have been equally notable wherever The Mickey Mouse Club was shown. (At least the episodes where she was present.) Of course that would probably mostly be other English speaking countries, but I just thought it worth clarifying that point. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Jean Marcel Honoré

Meets the WP:RY minimum criteria for non-English articles but English article and most others are stubs, even the longest is barely more. No indication of any international activity let alone notability, just another cardinal. I propose he be excluded. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I added him (because he met the number of foreign), but knew he was doomed - and this is the reason - the article is very short but even worse for notability, the language within has no superlatives - I see no wording in the article to heighten him as more than a "cardinal" = a special cardinal.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

i removed him per Derby's request--68.231.15.56 (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Boston Marathon bombings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think this recent "terrorist bombing attack" is in fact a national event? ApprenticeFan ^work 01:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a national event, belonging in 2013 in the United States, unless/until international involvement/repercussions are established. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Depends on the definition of international, the Boston Marathon is one of the most if not THE MOST important international marathon. Therefore any attack at it could be considered an international event. Notice all the flags during the video of the bombing... I think it's more important to see what the MOTIVE of the attack was because that would probably be more important in determining the overall notability of this particular event. Though I do think there would certainly already be grounds to include it before that is even said. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Should it be added? Yes, it's received significant coverage worldwide. Will it be? No. The recent year crew wants to keep their little kingdom to themselves. Hot Stop (Talk) 03:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I love your comment, and gets right to the point with what is wrong with all recent years articles. No wonder the media has been picking up on the bureaucratic restrictiveness that is ruining Wikipedia as the free encyclopedia these days as everything is subject to the high and mighty policy lovers who make policies for every god damn thing. We need a Conservative movement here within Wikipedia to get rid of many of these stupid restrictions. --Kuzwa (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a national event in a race with international competitors, bombings happen all too often around the world.

Sadly it happens so often that we cannot add every bombs that result in deaths. FFMG (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It can be added to both 2013 in the United States and, possibly, 2013 in sports. It should be added here, but it might be a few years before it is added. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

On the same day, in Iraq, over 30 bombs exploded resulting in over that number of people killed and over 200 injured. See here. We cannot possibly include the Boston bombing until well after this one. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That kind of stuff happens a lot more often in Iraq, though. Attacks on major sporting events such as this are a lot less common, which basically makes them more notable by default, in my opinion. --Mathnerd 101 _{(What I have done)} ^{(What have I done?)} 15:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the attack could be included if it turns out to be organized from abroad - that kind of thing still happens rarely enough in the States and, analogous to the 2011 Domodedovo bombing, it would be an international statement. But we should wait until more information becomes available. For all we know now, it could be some nutjob who found how to make bombs online. Coverage doesn't equal importance. This page isn't a news service, and the event features prominently enough in the news section of the main page to satisfy all the trigger-happy recentists. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I checked out 2013 in sports, and it seemed to basically be a list of sports competitions, and the results of said competition. Unless someone adds a seperate "incidents" section, I don't think it really belongs there.--Mathnerd 101 _{(What I have done)} ^{(What have I done?)} 15:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Too early to decide if it warrants a "World" encyclopedia entry--68.231.15.56 (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The attack should be included for the very fact that the bombings took place at an international sporting event, and has indeed produced repercussions worldwide. Numerous world leaders have publicly condemned the bombings and offered their condolences to the victims, as well as stepping up security in their own countries and in preparation for future events. In addition, other terroristic events such as the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 which did not necessarily have international implications, have been added to their respective "year pages". Although further information on the incident are yet to develop and be released as time progresses, I believe it is still appropriate to include the event at this stage due to the reaction and immediate implications of the event. --atakuzier (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Repercussions worldwide? Like what? News reports, yes, but here in Australia our news is already saturated with American trivia, often of the embarrassing "only in America" type. Politicians saying what is expected of them, yes, but that's meaningless. Anything else?

• Bombing of an international sporting event, in a region not currently in a state of war or civil war, with international coverage, where the target nation is currently fighting a war overseas which is itself a bombing target, with a large number of victims. Boston is not Iraq or Afghanistan, or Somalia, where ongoing violence, while much worse than this, is not as notable per instance. Seems like a no brainer to me to add it here. PS the bombing is not "trivia". Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was trivia. I despair over what's either deliberate misrepresentation, or incompetence, on behalf of so many here. It does your argument no good at all. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

They need to add this it is a major event I am shocked that they haven't already, It's bigger then the Russian Meteor. Three people died that day so I say add the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plzwork1122 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Three people dying is no biggie. You have to do better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

you're in te minority you pompous ass. Hot Stop (Talk) 01:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVIL. And learn to count, the majority in this discussion favour exclusion (at the moment). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

considering hilo spends his days on Wikipedia insulting all things American, his opinion should carry zero weight. Hot Stop (Talk) 16:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"trivia" was implied. why bring up that trivia dominates the media unless it has some relevance to this argument, unless you place it as an informative aside. which, by the way, I did with my PS, which was merely a hint that we should show some decorum when discussing articles involving tragic deaths (again, "3 people dying is no biggie. you have to do better"-this is entirely unhelpful and inconsiderate. Would you say this in person to the families of the dead? that should be the standard here try: "while i mourn for the victims and their families, my reading of WP policy on inclusion here is ABC"). There was no deliberate misrepresentation, and i am not incompetent.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not say it was trivia, and I implied nothing of the sort. You are either deliberately misrepresenting what I said, or completely misunderstanding it, which indicates incompetence. I do not insult all things American. I think it's a great country. However, the behaviour of some American editors here makes it obvious why I condemn some of its paranoid, loud mouthed, ignorant, insulting, self appointed representatives for seriously damaging the country's image. I know they don't represent the majority. Now, please, read the words actually posted and comment on them, not a straw man. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

HiLo, what is your problem? I'm Canadian and I tend to agree with these American issues on the point of it being a major event, which is worth discussion because of the venue in which the attack occurred. Your comment on 3 dead is no biggie is highly inappropriate, and one must wonder if you were intentionally trying to insinuate conflict on this page. If you want to say that I don't think it should be included because 3 dead pales in comparison in attacks to other events that go on and aren't included than you have every right too, however I will remind you that numbers alone do not always determine the significance or notoriety of an event, and you could certainly make your argument in a FAR more elegant way. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find WP:ELEGANCE, and I really don't see the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hilo, you are commenting inappropriately and you should be brought to administrative attention. Please apologize for your rude and crass comments immediately. I dont care if you think some american editors are paranoid, loud mouthed, ignorant, insulting self appointed representatives for seriously damaging the country's image. I am none of those things (which again, you imply by placing those comments next to your denial of my concerns, skirting outright accusation again, which is not as clever as you think it is), and my suggestion to have this subject added to this page is entirely reasonable, and can be debated reasonably. saying "3 dead is no biggie" i will repeat, is completely insensitive and needs an apology. the fact that you see no problem is itself highly problematic. PS, I will no longer argue for adding this here, and will no longer discuss this issue, or any other matter where you are posting comments. If you have a concern about my presence here, bring it up with an administrator. goodbye.(Mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Either way, that was a major event in history, The first successful terrorist attack against America since the World Trade Centers fell is worth at least a small note. Also I was not advocating adding it to the page simply because of the three poor people who died that day, but if a deliberate attack on United States soil isn't worthy then what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plzwork1122 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There is NO indication that it was an attack on the United States, yet. An attack "on" implies that it was by persons from another country for political reasons. The suspects were immigrants who lived in the US for 11 or 12 years and their motive is still unknown. At present the only apparent justification for inclusion appears to be that it was in the United States. That, on its own, is insufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, surely these Russian-born, ethnically Chechen men aren't foreigners at all. Anyway what's the reason for not including this? Not enough global coverage? Do I need links from Antarctica or the moon too? Whether or not you like it, people across the world pay attention to bombings in places like the U.S. where they don't happen. If this bombing happened at a global sporting event held in Australia, Canada, or someone else considered safe from bombings, they'd get the same amount of attention. Hot Stop (Talk) 22:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have just (minutes ago) heard a statement from, I believe, the US State Department which said words to the effect that there was "no indication that this was an international incident" and that because of the Chechen background of the suspects it was "easy to jump to conclusions". Also news coverage is not representative of international importance, this is WP:NOTNEWS, news is covered in Wikinews and Portal:Current Events. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I added it. You're the only one fighting this. Please read WP:OWN. Hot Stop (Talk) 23:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Please read WP:NOTNEWS, if in the next few weeks, further developments show an international connection, we can revisit this. In the meantime, this is clearly a national event.--McSly (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's an incredibly important event with plenty of international coverage. It should certainly be on here. It's about as "national" as Margaret Thatcher's death was. Ryan Vesey 23:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

International coverage is not by itself a sufficient argument for inclusion. The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting had plenty of coverage but is not included in 2012. So are presidential elections, which are also not included.--McSly (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion; it's an unfortunate event, but it still doesn't seem to have any international effect. The Boston Marathon isn't exactly an "international" sporting event; it's more like an "open" sporting event. Unless someone wants to claim that the bombers were supported by the (pre-Soviet breakup) KGB...? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Totally disagree Arthur, the Boston Marathon is one of the 6 Majors of International Running which includes marathons in Japan, the UK, Germany, and the U.S.. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• No vote in either direction towards inclusion; As i said above it is probably too early to make any decision yet - wiki year article is not a newspaper/TV - we need to first see if the chechen angle blossoms or withers.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - national and internationally historic in scope. The Boston marathon is truly an international sporting event, one of the most prestigious running events in the world, attracting many elite runners. A great world-class city, Boston, was shut down for a week. Russians and the Chechnyan insurganecy has been implicated. If that's not historic, we ought to shut down the whole of Wikipedia and go back to counting trains. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Boston Marathon attracts a lot of international runners, a Chinese national was killed, and a city was completely shut down. --98.209.192.206 (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - How is this not already included in the article? First, it was a terrorist attack at the oldest annual marathon race in the world. Secondly, Interpol issued a global warrant for the now-captured suspect after Boston police initially lifted the lockdown, making it an international event, even if he was only a block and a half away from them. Thirdly, the event has garnered international interest and reactions, as shown in the article. It should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleshty (talk • contribs) 22:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - International sporting event, Boston shut down, international interest. The bombing and massive reaction to it are significant enough to include in the article, in my view. Jusdafax 23:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose including. It is also not advisable to add confusion by combining two events, the bombing and the marathon. While the bombing itself was not worth noting, the shutting down of Boston on April 19, which we do not even specifically have an article about, is notable enough to be included.[8][9] I would remove the entry on April 15, and add "April 19, Boston shut down during manhunt for bombers. All public transit stopped." Apteva (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Shutting down Boston is not internationally significant. As for the Boston Marathon being an "international event" that definition is open to debate. The runners in Boston were not representing their countries (i.e. they weren't representing their Athletic Federation). they were competing as individuals, albeit from many countries. This is not the same as a multisport or multinational event such as the Olympic Games or a Football (Soccer) international. At the moment we do not know (and may never know) the motivation for the bombing or why the marathon was the target. It may have been because people of various nationalities were present, on the other hand it may just have been because it was a large crowd in an easily accessible place. If it was determined that it was the former I would be more in favour of inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Boston Marathon was an international event, as it is one of only half a dozen World marathons, and the joke is if you are not Kenyan don't bother thinking about winning (or a nearby country such as Ethiopia!), but if we look over the last ten years my guess is it is never mentioned. The fact that one of the victims of the bombing was Chinese does not make that an international event. I am 100% certain that many, many people around the globe were directly affected by Boston being shut down, making it preeminently an international event. Apteva (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - It's a relatively low bar for year-article inclusion, and this incident obviously exceeds it. Shadowjams (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A "relatively low bar"? Not for recent years it isn't. The Recent Year guidelines were specifically created because there was no bar at all. Many more internationally significant events than this have been excluded in other recent years, but then, most of them weren't in the US. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"weren't in the US" is not a valid discriminatory classification. Whatever criteria we use for one country we need to apply to all. Apteva (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! Including events just because they are in the US is discriminatory. Unfortunately this has occurred frequently in the past despite the efforts of a few editors to be impartial and to follow the guidelines at WP:RY where possible. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Currently here we are at 13 for vs 9 against and now HotStop has openned an incident at WP:AN#2013 and Boston Marathon bombing has been begun--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, this seems to me to be a no-brainer, even as an Australian. StAnselm (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - This was a huge, extended disaster that resulted in an unprecedented lockdown of one of the USA's biggest cities and hundreds were injured. It involved other nations, and was a huge topic internationally, as well. It definitely should be included in the 2013 article. Not to mention that there is probably more to the story coming, should the suspect give information. TDI19 (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Great ... (doesnt care one way or the other) ... now we have to decide if there needs to be a second sentence describing the resolution to the conflict - such as "Two brothers seeking Muslim takeover of Chechnya are implicated - one is killed, the other captured."--68.231.15.56 (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't. Even if the bombing is deemed internationally notable the closing down of a US city and the death/capture of the suspects is not. At most there could be mention of the death/capture under the original entry. Other details are available in the link to the bombing and do not need detailing here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This is laughable. Shutting down a city of over half a million people for a day is far more important than the death of three people. Apteva (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

And how does the shutting down of a city affect the rest of the world? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Just looking at other incidents of a similar nature, the 2002 article has "Terrorists detonate bombs in 2 nightclubs in Kuta, Bali, killing 202 and injuring over 300" for the 2002 Bali bombings, so it looks like we have about the right weight of detail here. StAnselm (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Derby, get over it. Consensus is that you have been overruled. It is not going to kill the article. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

i think that was uncalled for - we are discussing a second "closing" sentence for the item Derby has made a logical arguement that there should not be one - you need to make a cohessive arguement for whatever you are interested in - and NOT attack the editor--68.231.15.56 (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This is just speculation, all we really know is that 2 bombs exploded in Boston, the reader is then redirected to the main article where they can get more information about their motive and what happened.

(IMO), This entry should not really be here in the first place, lets not make it worse by writing an essay about it. As with other entries, we just say what happened on the day and redirect the users to the main article. FFMG (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The same number of people were also killed in the Melbourne Wall collapse, will that make it to the world encyclopaedia as well? Oh wait I forgot only America matters.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collingwood26 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The Boston bombings are included because they are internationally notable. The attacks were carried out at an international event, apparently by immigrants with an international Islamist ideology. It's not because of the number of deaths or because it happened in the US. Jim Michael (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Savar building collapse

• April 24 – An eight-story commercial building collapses in Savar Upazila near the Bangladeshi capital Dhaka, resulting in at least 401 people dead, one thousand injured and scores more trapped. (AP via ABC News), (Reuters via Sydney Morning Herald), (Daily Mail)

not much hope but INCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• BETTER QUESTION - WHY BOTHER to formulate a cohessive arguement in favor given the recent track record of dismissive behavior against large loss of life as other than "LOCAL EVENT" = WHO CARES? --68.231.15.56 (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Include But I agree with others, as it did not happen in the US, it does not have much chance to be included. Somehow one event is deemed 'international' but this one is not. FFMG (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  Include Same sentiments as FFMG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  Include Let's remember Wikipedia Five_pillars. New worl (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

huh? Hot Stop (Talk) 00:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Include It's a major disaster, and it is garnering press coverage all over the world. It should most definitely be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleshty (talk • contribs) 04:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  Exclude Domestic event. A high death toll and coverage in the media of other countries does not make the event internationally notable. 31.68.199.157 (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

31.68.199.157 = sockpuppet??? this account has exactly one edit to its entire existance.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This debate is pointless. See my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Recent years#Extending criteria for importance of events. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ivan Turina

• Does he make the criteria for inclusion or was he just another goalkeeper? Football2013a (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

He meets the minimum WP:RY criteria and many of the non-English articles are better than stubs BUT, he played only half a game in a minor international match and I suspect the only reason he has so many non-English articles is because football is the world's most international sport and there are more likely to be enough fans to create articles on minor players than would be the case for other sports. I don't think he is notable enough for inclusion so would exclude him. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

you are saying that percentage of total population intested in this sport would skew the results thereby gain inclusion - sounds highly likely to me EXCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Reyhanlı bombings

Seen that we now include terrorist attacks, I would like to add the 2013 Reyhanlı bombings, (11th Of May).
It is international as it raises tensions between the Turkey and Syria, (even further than already), (see also the various reactions).
The bombing itself caused 43 Deaths and 140 injured and there are ongoing fights between Turkish locals and Syrian refugees.
As for coverage the 3 continent coverage, there is a few, even 2 days after the event, UK, US, Japan. FFMG (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Too much of the event relies on guesswork for now to consider it important, IMO. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you mean by guesswork?

• A bomb exploded
• ~40 people died, 140 got injured.
• The Turkish government is blaming the Syrian government, (as per the article.
• There was some international response.
• There is international coverage of the event, (3 continent rules).

How is that different from other terrorist events listed in the year page(s)? FFMG (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

if and when tanks start rolling across the border in either direction i would think it would be notable - until then crystal ball = EXCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Who is talking about tanks rolling across the border? What has it got to do with adding it to 2013?

It is just an international event that should be added here, because of the 3x continent rule, because of the number of dead, and because of the international reaction. FFMG (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That was my point, too. What international reaction? Words? Diplomatic ping-pong shouldn't be taken literally until there are actual consequences. For now, not even international involvement is certain (c.f. my earlier comment on guesswork). — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit suggestions

2013 Lushan Earthquake April 20, 2013 Maps9000 (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

article says 193 dead which would probably not get included but it also says 11,000 injured which to my mind = INCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Number of people killed or injured is irrelevant to this article. It should be excluded because it was a domestic event. Jim Michael (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:RY states that "High death counts do not necessarily merit inclusion" (my emphasis). As there is no definition of what "high" is it follows that a high death toll may merit inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Deaths in 2013

Please add T.M Soundarajan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._M._Soundararajan) [March 24, 1922 - May 25, 2013] popular Tamil playback singer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:75E7:5D59:0:0:0:75E7:5D59 (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Why? He clearly doesn't have the 9 other-language Wikipedia entries, required by WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Frank Lautenberg

Meets WP:RY minimum but most of the non-English articles are bare stubs with little/no local citations. Reading his article there are appears to be nothing which indicates international notability. On this basis I think he should be excluded (unless I missed something). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• the wiki article mentions an incident in dubai that gained him world-wide notability in my opinion - also the article is long and all appears notable - although almost all American politicians probably dont desearve placement in the world article this one appears to just squeak by in my opinion - INCLUDE --68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "World-wide notability" is pushing it just a bit. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, I see nothing in making a speech in a domestic capacity, which appears to have only drawn a reaction from a domestic NGO, as constituting any international notability at all! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 European floods

I reverted a good-faith edit about the subject, assuming that the posted edit was too vague, and less number of fatalities reported than the 2002 events so far, although an article was created. It should not be evaluated only by the number of death toll, but should take economic impacts into consideration as well, but little too early to evaluate the events as notable enough.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 June 2013

Please add Japanese supercentenarian Jiroemon Kimura (1897-2013) to the list of deaths in June 2013 (died on 12th June), because he was the oldest verified male in recorded history at the age of 116. Sources: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22851848 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/10114681/Oldest-man-in-the-world-Jiroemon-Kimura-dies-aged-116.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/jiroemon-kimura-worlds-oldest-man-dead_n_3427490.html 95.148.145.71 (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion already under way on this above. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Jiroemon Kimura

OLDEST EVER MAN - should go without saying and he had 12 non-English at death - INCLUDE--S-d n r (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There have been several previous discussions as to whether oldest people (and last survivors etc) are notable enough for inclusion. The repeated consensus (so far) has been that people whose notability rests solely on their age are not sufficiently notable for inclusion. I see no reason to make an exception in this case. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

wrong and a mistatement of previous discussions - it has been like 30 years since either an oldest man or oldest woman has died so THERE HAVE BEEN NO DISCUSSIONS--68.231.15.56 (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In this case, unlike quite a few previous examples which were about "then-the-oldest", he was "the oldest-ever-man proven by the official records" (besides biblical, mythological, etc.) thus sufficient enough to INCLUDE, I suppose.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

normally my understanding of threshold testing is to keep the article from mushrooming out to 1000 obits or more a year - the last man to die as oldest was 15 years ago and the last woman was like 30 years ago - so there will most likely not be any percentage of mushrooming caused by inclusion - hell we will all be dead by the time some other editors next discuss this issue--68.231.15.56 (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

So to simplify things: A REALLY old person is not notable enough for inclusion, but an exception should be made for a REALLY, REALLY old person? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

george washington = 1st president = automatic inclusion (he will have the 9 non-eng) - oldest ever = unique just like washington so no saying that he is just one of something is not true "he is" the oldest period - thus "realy realy" does not apply - there is no one else--68.231.15.56 (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a completely irrelevant, not to mention pointless and incorrect, comparison. Neither is unique. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

to be the first of something is unique to be the most of something is unique--68.231.15.56 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither Kimura or Washington is unique. There are many people who have been the "oldest ever" and many people who were the first president of a country. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is the reliable source which approves Kimura as the Oldest Man Ever, as well as the Oldest Living Man and the Oldest Living Person. DerbyCountyinNZ, please provide any reliable source which proves that he is NOT "REALLY, REALLY old person". Also, I would like to see any other editor(s) who support(s) your opinion since it seems that you are currently the only one editor who is against for inclusion.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether reliable sources exist or not is irrelevant. The past consensus (on several occasions) has been that "oldest people" are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Recent Year articles. If there is consensus that Kimura is an exception to this because he is not just an "oldest living person" but an "oldest ever person" then so be it (where the other editors who previously formed the consensus are beats me). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)