Talk:2004/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think NPOV should be removed. Those, like Ford, still disputing neutrality, should explain their position, else let the matter drop.

The page is clearly not anglo centric, looking at the entires by nation/region gives:

Non national -250 Middle East - 25 USA - 24 Asia - 22 UK/Ireland - 17 Europe - 16 South & Cent America - 10 Russia - 7 Africa - 6 Pacific - 4 Canada - 2

Thus the page clearly gives a wide representative view of what has happened in the year. Much more so than the other year pages, and despite the edit wars, is clearly neutral. Astrotrain 22:17, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

• You know my position, Astrotrain. I just explained it two days ago. Yet again. Tell you what: you stop editing the page, and then I will go back through and neutralize the entire list, without your reverts. It will be quite a different list. Agreed? No, I didn’t think so.
  — Ford 23:43, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

• I am precariously close to attacking your intelligence and your intentions, Astrotrain. Don’t push me over that line. Just read the damned message. The message does not say “This article is not neutral.”. The message says “The neutrality of this article is disputed.”. You say it is neutral, I say it is not. The neutrality is therefore disputed. Unless your first language is something other than English, which I doubt, you have no excuse for being so impenetrable to the slightest points of logic. How many times do I have to explain myself?
  — Ford 15:47, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

• You no longer have a justification for disputing neutrality. You refuse to say why you still think it is not neutral. The view that the page is too anglo centric, or whatever is plainly not true. It also just encourages others to delete important english based events. If we tagged every article NPOV becuase we don't like what is written, the whole of Wikipedia would be NPOV tagged. Anyway, I'm on holiday now, so won't have time or interest in fighting battles with the likes of you, keep it tagged if you wish. However, the logic of the tag is seriously flawed. Astrotrain 16:37, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Look, guys: I've been reading this debate since the beginning, just because it's interesting to watch it evolve as 2004 does. But here we are at the end of 2004. Astrotrain, if Ford (and/or others) disagree with you about the neutrality of the page, regardless of whether he chooses to elucidate (further) the source of his disagreement, the page is ipso facto disputed. His disagreement is the dispute. He doesn't need a justification. Now, I suppose if some complete wacko were disputing neutrality against the complete consensus of all other opinion, there might be an argument for disregarding his dispute. But Ford is not alone, and his arguments against neutrality are cogent, even if one does not agree with them. Just leave the NPOV tag. Whom does it hurt, after all? It is surely better to err on the side of caution and leave NPOV tags until there is unanimity in removing them. Personally, I think all year pages should have NPOV tags, since they're inherently a lot more POV than the average article. This interminable argument over notability only serves to underscore that. I'd suggest moving on from 2004, anyway, since the year is at an end. After all, there's 2005 to begin arguing over, and I eagerly look forward to what I am sure to be the inevitable disagreement over notability there. Citizen Sunshine 00:10, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Regardless, Astrotrain should not be the one removing the NPOV tag, as he was involved in the dispute. I have replaced it, and would request that whoever removes it next not be Astrotrain. --YixilTesiphon 13:24, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • Ford is also disputing the neutrality of several other pages including
    John Paul II and Kosovo. It seems to be his thing to enter into disputes. It is not satisfactory to continue to dispute NPOV for the sake of it. There has been attempts to get editors to agree what to include (see above), but it seems that anything to do with Britain, or mentions of royality offends the republican views of Ford and a few others. It is fair enough to dispute POV, but you must have a basis, and be able to agree a remedy. Astrotrain
    19:43, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to see a reiteration of your views, Ford. You say that "selection of events" is still a problem, but Astrotrain contends that it is no longer so. What are some of the events that you specifically have a problem with? --Simetrical 20:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- - - -
The dispute tag on

I do not feel I have any obligation to go through any of this again, after the great number of times that I have done so. But I will honor Simetrical’s request briefly, out of respect for its source. The general objections I have had to Astrotrain’s inclusions have been the unwarranted weight to things happening in Britain, and to a lesser extent in Europe and the Anglo-Saxon diaspora, and the unwarranted weight to accidents and disasters with small loss of life and no further social consequences. Examples of relatively-unnotable inclusions (they are certainly not all Astrotrain’s inclusions): the Queen Mary 2 (and why is it important that Elizabeth was there?), the top-up fees, the suicide bombings in Ashdod, the Palestinian protests at the death of Ahmed Yassin (the assassination was the notable event), Elizabeth goes to France, the final episode of ‘Friends’, Frederik gets married, IOC short list, the purple flour bomb, the Paris airport collapse, the WWII memorial, the anniversary of D-Day, two mentions of Terry Nichols, groundbreaking for Freedom Tower, the Euro championship, the British Open, the Statue of Liberty, the inauguration of the Scottish Parliament Building, another protest in Commons, the Chicoutimi fire, Elizabeth at the Scottish Parliament Building, Flight 5966, the redeployment of the Black Watch, Cassini probe mentioned yet again, the World Series, the Berkshire crash, the Peterson verdict, the Bundaberg crash, the Nintendo DS, the Millau bridge (why is it important that Chirac was there?), the Mulhouse explosion. Of course, the notability of any one of these may be debatable, but that is a cursory list to give an idea of the sort of bias that exists in event selection. Many of the things that I would have seen included were included over Astrotrain’s objections. Others I have forgotten. And I will not take the effort to go back through the year day-by-day to recover them just to engage in an edit war.
— Ford 21:40, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

Thank you. That's quite sufficient. --Simetrical 22:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've read through this dispute. I think that the best way of proceding is to split this up into subpages. As I think this is the best resolution, I'm going to let people do this and remove the NPOV tag. If those people are serious about fixing up the neutral point of view on this article, they will shift content into the subpages. Please don't put it back in again or I will protect this page. I have no real interest in the disputes, and I'm really an outside party. I'm intervening here because I don't see any end in sight of this dispute unless someone takes a firm hand. That someone is going to be me, like it or not! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• You cannot resolve the dispute by fiat, and you should not behave like a dictator. You are exceeding your mandate as an administrator. Firm hand? What are you going to do, give us a spanking? You have not really read the dispute if you think your solution will work. There will be an edit war, or someone will be forced into submission. You think it is the best solution, so you will do it, and if you don’t get your way, you will protect the page. Glad to see that the spirit of community is strong here at Wikipedia. All hail the new king.
  — Ford 13:47, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
  • Just try it and see. I don't see you trying to resolve any of these issues, so I am taking that firm hand. So, either you sort it out with a compromise (make a new subpage), or I lock the page. It's not hard! And personally, I don't really care how much you complain about it. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but

Jimbo Wales

. You do not represent all Wikipedia, you do not represent an Arbitration Committee, and you are not Jimbo Wales. I will have to ask that you withdraw your threat to protect this page if your solution is not followed.

Consider this step one of dispute resolution. If you persist, I intend to open up a request for comment on this matter, and eventually an arbitration if we cannot resolve this without force. —Simetrical (talk) 03:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will not. Remedies have been suggested, and parties have not come to the table. By all means file an RFC on me. If it is found that I am acting out of hand, then I will recapitulate. Until then, I will procede as I have stated. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I think your response was necessary given the refusal of some editor's in discussing what aspects are (in their opinion), POV. The NPOV tag could not remain under Wikipedia guidance, if one party refuses to engage in discussion. Astrotrain 14:38, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is stupid: "(in their opinion), POV". Need an explanation, anyone? --YixilTesiphon 02:02, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

This is not correct. As with any dispute, discussion is only the first step. If you wish to press your dispute, you are free to open up a

request for comment in accordance with the dispute resolution guidelines. Administrative intervention is only ever a part of dispute resolution once an Arbitration Committee decides it has to be, or briefly to stop an edit war. —Simetrical (talk

) 03:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is correct. Have you bothered to read the talk page? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since Simetrical will also stand against this blatant abuse, let us proceed. Ta bu shi da yu is clearly proposing to violate the

Will you do the honors, Simetrical, or shall I?
— Ford 05:54, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

I have created a page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu. Anyone who's interested in the dispute should go there. Once you've signed the page, Ford, needless to say, move the allegation on the main RFC page from Candidate pages to Approved pages. —Simetrical (talk) 19:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Honorifics aren't important

we need to get rid of the tag. an article with such a scope should not be held hostage by hagglings over honorifics. I for one certainly couldn't care less. Such questions should be debated in

If the only basis Ford had for disputing neutrality would be honorifics, I'd agree that the tag should be removed (although I would still disagree with the honorifics themselves and with Ta bu shi da yu's forced removal). However, it's not. Ford explained, most recently up at NPOV removal, that in his view, the event selection was extremely skewed. Look at his selection of totally unimportant events that got included and tell me that the events to be included were selected neutrally.

Note that the factual accuracy wasn't disputed. —Simetrical (talk) 23:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed you seem to be accusing me of removing the honorifics from the page. Could you provide me with the diff where I did this? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Simetrical obviously meant that he “would still disagree with [the presence of] the honorifics themselves and with Ta bu shi da yu's forced removal [of the NPOV tag]”. Neither of us believes you have taken any stand on the honorifics.
— Ford 13:25, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Oh, OK. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How is Ta bu shi da yu not acting out of line?

I have seconded the request, and the dispute ought to be approved for comment. I moved the dispute to Approved, but Ta bu shi da yu moved it back, falsely claiming that there was no evidence presented of an attempt to resolve the conflict, even though Simetrical cited the conversation above. Wouldn’t we all call that a conflict of interest?

Let me state this for the record, as I would be happy to repeat elsewhere. The case laid out above is open-and-shut. The threatened action would be a clear violation of the protection policy. This dispute cannot be resolved on the basis of whether other editors disagree with me personally or agree with Ta bu shi da yu’s edit and proposed solution. It must be resolved on the basis of the written policy, to which Ta bu shi da yu as an administrator is subject. The only defense I have read so far that objectively deals with the written policy is the fact, which Ta bu shi da yu has noted, that there has been only a threat of action, not action itself. Simetrical and I are behaving calmly and rationally about this (and Simetrical much more than I); I, for one, would have thought it childish to provoke Ta bu shi da yu to carry out the threat by restoring the tag. But if the entire defense is to be based on a technicality, then I will gladly restore the tag, and Ta bu shi da yu can then remove the tag and protect the page as threatened. Simetrical, with my support, is attempting to pre-empt that situation. That is surely commendable.

I would ask all those who comment to kindly explain what part of the protection policy supports Ta bu shi da yu’s threatened action. There is no point in arguing about honorifics, or event selection, or what constitutes a neutral point of view. There is no point in explaining how much we all want this page to look nice for our readers. This dispute is about one thing: the protection policy. Ta bu shi da yu is clearly proposing to violate that policy. If others encourage this on the shortsighted grounds that they agree with Ta bu shi da yu’s editorial judgement and disagree with mine, we may as well abandon all notion of policy, or of administrators as servants of the community, not masters.
— Ford 00:51, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

As one party has decided to place the NPOV tag back into the article, I have removed it and protected the page (as I said I would). I can still not see any attempt to resolve the NPOV dispute through compromise. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Please cite the specific policy from Wikipedia:Protection policy that you are using to justify this page protection.
  — Ford 01:26, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
  • "Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an "edit war," upon request." - in this case, no compromise has been tried as far as I can see, and there are alternatives to the NPOV tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • What edit war? What request? Show me recent evidence of an edit war, or any evidence of a request for protection that predated your threat to protect.
      — Ford 01:34, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
      • You keep placing the NPOV tag back onto the page. You have not tried to compromise by splitting the page into subarticles, which quite frankly is the only decent compromise to resolve this deadlock. I don't see good faith editing going on here, and I only just started reading the talk page. I should emphasis that I am involved in the extent of administratively locking a page where a protracted dispute is ongoing. Having a year page with an NPOV notice for the reasons that have been given is, to be frank, quite ridiculous and most people (except for yourself and Simetrical) on the RFC that was filed on me agree. May I suggest you both try to come to some sort of ammicable compromise so I can unlock the page? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nothing in Wikipedia policy requires disputants to compromise. Compromise is an option, but one that has been discarded by both disputants in this case. I'm actually in favor of splitting up the page, but you are not the one to make that decision. Wikipedians as a whole are. I wouldn't object to a vote on the matter, and I would abide by its ruling. —Simetrical (talk) 23:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Avoiding constant disputes:

The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that we are all reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding new content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides.

I hope this makes things clear. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing a policy to support your view. Unfortunately, the grammar of the part you bolded is a bit confusing, but it certainly doesn't require you to make a compromise that would be unfair to one or more sides—thus, the requirement for compromise is not absolute, and its application is in fact entirely subjective. Here, all of the disputants seem to be of the opinion that any further compromise would, in fact, be unfair to their side. Therefore, in their view, they aren't violating the policy, and nobody can objectively gainsay them. You are entitled to your opinion that they're violating the policy; they are entitled to their opinion that they're not. —Simetrical (talk) 03:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I have to agree with locking the page.

For starters, many, MANY edtions of this page only differ by a few terms, simply because of the honorifics. Long before the conflict got to this point, i suggested that solving the problem in the discussion first then edit the page, no one heeded that.

But again, the dispute is valid as honorifics does affect people of different backgrounds. Using the honorifics means that one is subject to their 'superiority' or higher social status. Wiki, being an encyclopedia, should be neutral, not taking sides with any parties. The argument is valid and a policy should be established. However edit wars like what was going on with this page should be avoided.

BTW, TBSDY, you should tone down your 'authority' a little, sure you are an administrator with certain editing priviledges, but if new comers to wiki were to see these discussions and comments, your 'threat' will not appear as kind even tho it temporarily stops the dispute. You may havd done things "according to the books", but saying things like "just try it and see...I don't care how much you complaint about it", that's really pushing people's nerves -__- it's not a way to get people to have a fair and good-tempered discussion with you. LG-犬夜叉 21:15, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll make that attempt. Right now, it's very clear where I stand however. But I take your feedback on board. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"However edit wars like what was going on with this page should be avoided." There was no ongoing edit war at the time Ta bu shi da yu stepped in. If there were one, of course, he would have every right to protect the page. However, everyone had tacitly agreed to disagree on a version—Ford had ceased to change the event selection and honorifics, and Astrotrain had largely stopped removing the NPOV tag. —Simetrical (talk) 23:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's a problem with that: we don't want NPOV tags on pages! I'm sorry, active measures must be made to try to resolve the issue by both sides to remove the tag. There should not be, and should never have been, a passive acceptance of the permanent existence of the NPOV tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I would like to ask what is being done here to resolve the NPOV dispute. Until I see some attempt at compromise by the parties, I'll not unlock the page. If nothing is discussed, I will assume that the issue is closed and unlock the page. However, if the NPOV tag goes back on the article, this will show that the NPOV dispute is still running and the authors are intractable in their views and I will remove it again and lock the page once more. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• And once again, I would like to say that you are abusing your power and violating Wikipedia:Protection policy. You do not have a right to protect the page in this manner, to use your administrative power to enforce your own preferred edit, or to demand your desired outcome. There has been no arbitration ruling against me, and however unpopular I may be in some circles, there are no grounds for an arbitration ruling against me. I am an editor in good standing and expect to be treated as such. I will not submit to prior restraint. I will make no commitment to do anything as regards this page until you have withdrawn the page protection without conditions. As it is, you have already fired your only gun. Leave the page protected. Eventually you will look as petty as you now think I look.
  — Ford 03:54, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

• • Oh for god's sake. Simetrical and Ford , if you two had spent a tiny fraction of the energy you spent on your temper tantrum of an RfC in instead trying to reach a compromise, this whole NPOV issue would have been dealt with long ago. Even now, all you want to do is stamp your feet and whine instead of dealing with it. If there's any disruption going on worthy of an RfC, it's yours. And if I had the time, I'd file the RfC myself. --Calton 01:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The link to Mina on February 1 should be changed to Mina, Saudi Arabia. Dralwik 01:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mina, Saudi Arabia doesn't actually exist. Do you still want me to do this? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If internal links to nonexistent pages weren't intended exist, then the effort to make them go directly to the edit page would not have been taken. And if Mina simply exists as an article, shouldn't it be moved? --YixilTesiphon 01:58, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have now unlocked the page. To the disputing parties, please try to come to a compromise. Continuing to split up the pages might be a good idea. Whatever it is, don't just slap on the NPOV tag and do nothing! NPOV disputes need to be actively resolved. The NPOV tag is not a good one to have on an article. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Presently, the NPOV dispute still exists, and it therefore seems inappropriate to keep it off the page. Would you accept the temporary readdition of the tag while we formulate and post a vote as to what to do with the page? —Simetrical (talk) 02:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having the tag for several months did not help any, and I don't see why it would be of any more use now. - SimonP 03:15, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Not really. I think the NPOV tag was abused before. If you want a vote, then go ahead. Please don't put the tag back on again. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The tag itself wasn't abused. There was a legitimate NPOV dispute, and the tag was there to reflect that. The fact that no one worked toward resolving the dispute is a separate issue. —Simetrical (talk) 01:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You haven't answered, Ta bu shi da yu. Why don't you think the tag belongs here? There's a clear NPOV dispute. —Simetrical (talk) 02:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was being abused, as the editors who added it refused to come to some sort of agreement on how to resolve the NPOV issue. The contributors were happy for that tag to stay on till the end of time! Clearly abuse. Don't put it back. Not for this issue, anyway. If you do decide to put it back, try to work out how to resolve the issue. Make it temporary, as the NPOV tag is not a solution, it is merely a temporary measure to note the article has problems and it needs to be worked on. My last word on the matter. I've already made this clear before. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We are working toward resolution. There's an ongoing discussion about splitting up the page, in an attempt to reach consensus—the Wikipedia way of reaching dispute resolution. The tag's prior (alleged) abuse is no reason for it not to be used now, if the putative abuse is no longer relevant. I fully agree that ideally, the NPOV tag should only be a temporary measure; and in that spirit, I'm attempting to work toward a solution. Can it go back temporarily, at least, while we work this out? —Simetrical (talk) 04:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean, "split up the page"? Astrotrain 09:01, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I was thinking that subarticles could be created and a link placed on this page. That is only a suggestion (though I think it's the only real way of dealing with the page), if another compromise can be found then go for it! - Ta bu shi da yu 20:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's a horrible idea. Nobody will want to read it if they have to go to different pages. And how would that help the dispute anyways? --YixilTesiphon 00:04, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think those people who are reading a page about a bunch of events won't mind, personally. But if you don't want to do it, find another solution. Either way, that NPOV tag is not going back for the same reason it did before. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem with event selection is that there's no framework for deciding what were, in absolute terms, the most important events of the year. The highlights of sports in 2004 should be fairly clear: significant events within a given sport are pretty obvious, and you can decide which sports are more important by viewership or funding. The highlights of world politics in 2004 (not that there's a page on them) would be less clear, but still easily manageable: the most important political events within a given country are pretty obvious, and how much international importance a given country has is also fairly easy.

But how do you decide what's important overall in 2004? I would be inclined to go with a world politics-style approach, since I feel that our past, present, and future are all influenced by government far more than anything else. But many people, while perhaps acknowledging that politics are influential, feel that other things are more important or significant. Some people don't give a damn that Bush got another term, they just care about sports, or computer games, or even sustenance. Bush's policies affect us all, yeah, to a greater or lesser extent, but they don't do much to affect many people's primary interests in life.

So splitting up the page, in a sense, largely removes the value judgment from event selection. We no longer have to worry about whether it's more important that the Red Sox won the World Series or Indonesia got a new leader. The fact that the Red Sox won the World Series would clearly be noted on the sports page, and the fact that Indonesia got a new leader would clearly be noted on the world politics page. —Simetrical (talk) 01:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's precisely correct, and exactly why I suggested splitting the page. I'm asking around how to set policy and guidelines because I think that if we had guidelines then we wouldn't have had problems with this page. Once I start a guidelines page, or if someone does it before me (let me know!) I'll try to let everyone know so they can contribute ideas. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To YixilTesiphon:

I'm one of those who have suggested splitting up the page. That way, some of the British local events can go to the 2004 in the United Kingdom page, for example. And some people have actually done something about it, like creating a 2004 in the United States page. And someone even created a The world in 2004 page; however, I think that page is a bit strange: The 2004 page should be covering events of World relevance in the first place. Page splitting is not a solution if Astrotrain insists on putting all sorts of British local events on the World page, though.

Part of the disputes can be solved by splitting into sub-pages, and I think that effort should move on as quickly as possible. Other disputes, like the honorfication dispute, cannot be solved that way, I'm afraid. As I see it, it cannot be solved until Astrotrain accepts the fact that not everyone are royal enough to be willing to honor royal people in special ways.

TroelsArvin 09:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Obviously local-importance events should go on those subpages mentioned. We agree completely, actually; the type of dispute that you mentioned as not being solvable by this method was exactly what I was worrying about. --YixilTesiphon 04:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

• I am not insisting on putting British local events here, only significant ones. The key point is that an event may be local and effect only that country, but it may still be significant, so therefore applicable to be posted here. Astrotrain 19:32, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

What criteria would you use to decide whether an event is significant or not? —Simetrical (talk) 01:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On another note, splitting up the page would be a good idea, however if you take a look at the diversity of events, it would result in tens of pages created. As an editor, I would be less inclined to visit all the pages let alone a reader.

Think about it, these pages for the years are here for a reason...nobody can possibly know or care about everthing that goes on in the world. If we split up the pages, most likely they will be cluttered with local events which the majority of people does not care about.

So I believe the same problem will arise again, and not only on one page per year, but multiple pages.

I say we keep the current page intact and progressively work out a general outline of what should be included. LG-犬夜叉 19:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Splitting up the page wouldn't result in tens of pages being created. Most of the significant events could go on regional politics pages, of which we could have five or six. You're right that this wouldn't solve the problem, but it would mitigate it—event selection wouldn't be self-evident, but it would be easier than here. You couldn't have Astrotrain insisting on adding every plane crash on a page that's expressly for politics. (He could create a Vehicular crashes in 2004 page if he wants.) You would still have disputes, but fewer of them, even spread across all those pages. —Simetrical (talk) 02:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[Note: this was created from the "Page Unlocked." section above for ease of reading. The discussion on the merits of splitting up the page was left. —Simetrical (talk) 02:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

I don't ask for people to be refered to in a "special" way, only their proper form. It is not a POV to say a title or style. Astrotrain 19:32, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

And what criteria do you use to determine their "proper" form? Their legal name in the United Kingdom, which is a minority of the English-speaking world? --YixilTesiphon 04:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV publications (news sources, encyclopedias, dictionaries) universally do not use titles such as "Her Majesty", with the possible exception of a few in royalist countries (it would help if you could supply some of those). In fact, pretty much no one except royalists and official government sources uses such titles. Therefore, most people expect anyone except a royalist to leave out the titles, and the titles smack of POV. There's nothing inherent in the titles that implies royalism, but they imply royalism just the same; similarly, nothing in most ethnic slurs is inherently offensive, but the slurs are nevertheless offensive. Usage determines connotation, and the usage of the titles is limited to royalists. —Simetrical (talk) 19:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Smashing good points you provided above =D. I'd like to see anyone argue against that. LG-犬夜叉 19:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Not using the title "Her Majesty" etc is POV as well, because in coutnries with a monarchy it would indicate you are republican. The title is the default value. --Spinboy 19:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't you hate it when a point is so painfully stupid that it's impossible to argue against? Somebody field this one. --YixilTesiphon 03:40, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's POV if you use it, and it's POV if you don't use it. We need a guideline. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. --YixilTesiphon 23:00, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

The title is not the default value for an NPOV publication. As I said, no NPOV publication uses "Her Majesty", and therefore nobody expects them to—in a royalist country or elsewhere. The BBC doesn't use "Her Majesty". Can you find me a nominally NPOV publication that does, and isn't blatantly royalist? —Simetrical (talk) 02:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth I trust I have made my point. --Spinboy 02:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can I just point out to you guys that no news source is entirely NPOV? We're as close as it comes to that. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You fail on the first one, Spinboy, that one's from Nepal. --YixilTesiphon 23:03, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. The "Third" URL that Spinboy gave is a short article reporting the fact that the James Bond movie On Her Majesty's Secret Service is one of the greatest tearjerkers of all time. What exactly does this prove? Aleph4 00:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's no requirement as to where the evidence has to come from. So my point still stands. Besides, only one of 5 links is from Nepal. --Spinboy 00:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of your five links, the second was a press release by an interested party. The third didn't refer to anyone as "Her Majesty". The fifth source only turns up three hits for "Her Majesty", two of which referred to "Her Majesty's Ambassador" (which is presumably the name of the ambassador's job position) and one of which seemed to be a reference to the same James Bond movie that contaminated your third link. The remaining two may or may not be "blatantly royalist"; I'm not going to bother checking. Even if they aren't, you still haven't made your point that using titles in a monarchy "would indicate you are republican", just found me exactly two publications that use titles. The BBC, Reuters, the Guardian, and The Times are all the Britain-based news publications I can think of, and they're some of the biggest in Britain (I think). None use "Her Majesty". Are they mostly viewed as republican or neutral?

(By the way, what's wrong with Nepal?) —Simetrical (talk) 01:23, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is not POV to say a title or style. Also it is not POV not to use that title or style (as long as you can still work out who you are talking about). For instance HM Queen Elizabeth or Queen Elizabeth are fine, but Elizabeth Windsor is not as it is unrecognisable, and very incorrect. Astrotrain 19:04, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

If both "HM Queen Elizabeth" and "Queen Elizabeth" are fine with you, let's settle on "Queen Elizabeth", and everyone will be happy. And the conflict is solved. TroelsArvin 20:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. --Spinboy 00:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's arguing against using the Queen title. I'm certainly willing to agree to "Queen Elizabeth", and Ford has said in the past that he doesn't mind titles like Queen either. I think everyone but Ford is also willing to accept Lord, Sir, Duke, etc. Does anyone here mind if we drop Her Majesty and keep Queen? —Simetrical (talk) 03:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One solution to the problem of this page's NPOV dispute is splitting it up. This solution is probably the most supported one. Let's see if we can reach consensus on this issue, shall we? In addition to any arguments you may wish to post here, preferably list any agents or methods you'd be willing to accept as mediation. If you don't want to agree to any mediation, that's your right, but it would be undesirable for us to reach deadlock here (as has happened for the past several months). —Simetrical (talk) 04:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arguments in favor

The problem with event selection is that there's no framework for deciding what were, in absolute terms, the most important events of the year. The highlights of sports in 2004 should be fairly clear: significant events within a given sport are pretty obvious, and you can decide which sports are more important by viewership or funding. The highlights of world politics in 2004 (not that there's a page on them) would be less clear, but still easily manageable: the most important political events within a given country are pretty obvious, and how much international importance a given country has is also fairly easy.

But how do you decide what's important overall in 2004? I would be inclined to go with a world politics-style approach, since I feel that our past, present, and future are all influenced by government far more than anything else. But many people, while perhaps acknowledging that politics are influential, feel that other things are more important or significant. Some people don't give a damn that Bush got another term, they just care about sports, or computer games, or even sustenance. Bush's policies affect us all, yeah, to a greater or lesser extent, but they don't do much to affect many people's primary interests in life.

So splitting up the page, in a sense, largely removes the value judgment from event selection. We no longer have to worry about whether it's more important that the Red Sox won the World Series or Indonesia got a new leader. The fact that the Red Sox won the World Series would clearly be noted on the sports page, and the fact that Indonesia got a new leader would clearly be noted on the world politics page. —Simetrical (talk) 01:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that perhaps we should make the subpages, gather the data and then have a vote of what the most important dates in each topic are. Each topic should be limited to a certain number of events that are significant. Those events that have the most votes for significance should be selected for the year page. This would give clear consensus on what should be shown and what should not be shown. The year pages are tricky. If more events must be added, each should go through the voting process (however we set this up). Yes, this is convoluted. However, this appears (to my eyes anyway) to be the only way to resolve these issues! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Setting up a decision process for subpages before we've even seen if disputes will arise seems a bit premature. Generally, people will be able to agree on important events for the year in a given specific topic, or so we can hope. Guidelines can be provided. I wouldn't set up a limitation on free editing (whether enforced by users or admins) except as a last resort. —Simetrical (talk) 04:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... are you sure? The reason that this page had an NPOV tag slapped on it was because no one could decide what is a significant date to be placed on the main year page. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I misread your idea. You want the 2004 page to still be used to list events. In that case, I disagree. The same problems will arise. You'll have to weight things, and the weighting will be contentious no matter what the outcome. I don't think anything whatsoever in sports belongs on a page that's supposed to list notable events, for instance, let alone vehicular crashes or the birth of some insignificant member of Britain's nobility. But others disagree—see /Archive_1#F.2A.2A.2A_Politics, for starters, and Astrotrain's repeated additions of train crashes et al. How do we resolve this? That's the crux of the matter. If you keep events on this page, you haven't done anything to resolve the NPOV disputes at all—you'll have to decide how many events 2004 in world politics should have as opposed to 2004 in vehicular crashes, and we're never going to agree on that. —Simetrical (talk) 21:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arguments against

Mediation acceptance

I am willing to accept the decision of any clear majority in a poll that's formulated in a manner that I find acceptable. If no clear majority emerges or we can't even agree on how to formulate the poll, I'm willing to accept mediation. The resolution of this issue is more important than the specific solution chosen—either we split up the page, or we make guidelines for this page. Either one is okay, certainly far preferable to none. I hope you all agree with me on this, at least, and will therefore specify some means of mediation that's agreeable to you. —Simetrical (talk) 04:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added this suggested critera for the page before.

• Any national Elections in politically significant countries (ie G8, Canada, Australia, some large European)
  • • Aleph4 comments: I am European myself, but I don't see why an election in, say, Spain (population 43 million, GDP 880 billion USD) should be automatically more important than an election in, say, Iran (population 69 million, GDP 480 billion USD). An interesting criterion (certainly not the only one) for the newsworthiness of an election is: will power change hands, or is at least a neck-to-neck race expected? -- Aleph4 14:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• 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) that causes major damage or human casualties.
• 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)
  • Perhaps worth thinking about here is events which don't happen every year (e.g. Olympics, World Cup). This will 1) Reduce the number of events in sport on the main page making it less clutterd 3) provide a reasonably quantative basis for consideration 2) Not have a significant detraction from sport's importance since: Any readers desire for info on the date/outcome/participants in an annual sporting event would likely lead them to the sport in xxx page. Incidental "oh I didn't realise that I'll follow the link and expand my horizons" type behaviour would continue. Not suggesting this is the only criteria but perhaps a solid basis MattHope 13:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 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

Does anyone agree/disagree?--Astrotrain

Seems like a good idea, though there are some pretty significant events like the SuperBowl that should probably be added. And I'm not Amercian. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mostly agree. However I should point out that Canada is a part of G8. I Just didn't say anything the last time around. LG-犬夜叉 03:13, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Astrotrain's list:

• About accidents (trains, planes, ...): I don't see why they automatically qualify. The accidents must be "really bad" to be included in the main 2004 page. Which leads to the problem of defining "really bad". If they are not "really bad", they should go to a region-specific 2004 page. Lacking better ideas for "really bad", i could suggest a death toll of 100+ as a general guideline.
• About political events: I agree that new political events should only be included if they would make world headlines. However, some items are added in retrospectively, and if a minor political event later turns out to cause major political changes, then of course, it can be added later. But I guess noone disagrees with that.
• The definition of "occur in politically significant countries" as G8 (plus Australia and a few more European countries) is too narrow. It leaves out countries like China and India. And it leaves out countries with great regional importance, like South Africa, Israel and Brazil. I tend to prefer a filter like "the event results in a top-news story at the front page of BBC World, CNN World" (and other papers to be specified, including at least one non-European/US news sources).
• I'm sceptical about "famous/important" buildings. No doubt, the opening of the successor of the Twin Towers should be mentioned when it happens. But I still fail to see why the Scottish Parliament is that important. Is it because of architectual significance? (It's hardly because of political significance.) The Scottish Parliament event seems to me like a perfect candidate for movement to a local 2004 page.
• In general, I think that all new wars should be mentioned (not including all civil wars): If two countries go to war, there is normally a major conflict of world importance behind the conflict.
• About deaths:

• I think that deaths of major scientists and authors should be included, but that may be included in your "etc".
• Not all senior royalty qualifies. If in doubt, the event should be moved to a specialized page (local 2004 page and/or a 2004-in-royalty page).
• I agree very much on the "if the person doesn't even have a Wiki article, they should definetly not be added" filter. Although it should probably be "There must be a non-stub Wikipedia article on the person".

TroelsArvin 11:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This proves my point—I think that a large percentage of the items on Astrotrain's list don't belong on a year page, and that many of the rest are very poorly formulated (Spain is nowhere near as important as China in just about any sense, but Astrotrain seems to think otherwise). The best course of action here would be to agree to disagree, since we are almost certainly never going to agree on whether the birth of a probable eventual heir to the powerless throne of a powerless country (population barely more than half that of New York City, probably a lower GDP as well) deserves to be anywhere near the main year page. This doesn't mean that either of us is unreasonable, just that we have different values. This is perfectly fine and acceptable—but Wikipedia shouldn't have values, where avoidable. It should keep to straightforward, uncontroversial priorities whenever possible. Here, it's entirely possible: by splitting up the page. —Simetrical (talk) 04:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't say Spain is more important than China. I think you may be missing the point I was trying to make. The first category I suggested to be included was elections, and then I gave a suggested list of countries to be included (not an absolute list, ie others could be included). However, it must be mentioned that in many countries, there is no elections (such as China), or a significant lack of democracy that makes the election non-significant (as in the suggested Iran case). I take the points on board about regional powers such as India, Israel etc, and agree with the comments made. The third point covers political events, which is likely to apply in China or Iran when appropiate.

As for the births mentioned by Simetrical, I think you can agree that for the moment, there is few births of famous people to be included just now. The reason I included royals, is because these are the only notable persons who are famous from birth. I'm sure the list will grow in time to include more appropiate persons.Astrotrain

I agree that few people of note are born. That doesn't mean you should add people who aren't of note, but rather that you should just leave out the births section altogether for now. I'll repeat that the person you added is nothing more than the "probable eventual heir to the powerless throne of a powerless country", not notable by any means. And there are plenty of other issues we disagree about—your belief that a train crash killing a few people is in any way noteworthy, for instance. I'll agree that I misinterpreted your inclusion of the entire G8 in your first point, however, and rather foolishly at that. —Simetrical (talk) 23:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't actually add the Norweigian Princess to the births section, indeed I had never heard of her. Astrotrain 13:22, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I just want to say that adding some pictures REALLY brightens up this page. 142.58.181.84 23:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need to record the offspring of famous people in this page (except in the certain circumstances where they are born into a hereditary role)? I mean, we're trying to be a free encyclopedia, not Hello magazine. Average Earthman 08:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, I deleted them all. Astrotrain 14:02, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Personally I can't see the need to have births at all. I can see very little difference between those who are born into a hereditary role and those who are born to celebrities. (most) Royals and celebrities have pretty similar functions - tabloid fodder. Psychobabble 01:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The Norweigan princess may be Queen of that country in future, so probably best to keep. Astrotrain 10:58, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Was the election of

• Ross Kemp who played Grant in
  Eastenders was also a rector in the past, was his election significant also? Astrotrain
  12:18, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Leo Blair and Cruz Beckham do not have their own articles (due to their lack of individual notability), only redirects to their fathers' articles. In order for a person to be included in the Births or Deaths section of a Year or Day article, they must have their own article. How many PMs or chess players there are is not relevant, rarity does not equal notability. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the deaths section and simply made it say See deaths in 2004. However, the page is still over 32KB. Any section you think I should move into its own article?? Georgia guy 19:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Each month already has its own article (

February 2004, etc.), so we could probably stand to pare down some of the events. - jredmond

19:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The choices of ilustrations of current events are a guy who was convicted of killing many people in a terrorist attack, a notable event in space exploration, the death of one of the most important US Presidents, a tsunami, a hurricane, and some guy who won a bunch of times on Jeopardy. Spot the odd one out maybe? --Jamieli 14:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The image

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Nichols2.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember Kaitlyn Maher from season 3 of Americas Got Talent? Well, she has an article on Wikipedia, too. She was born on January 10, 2004. Can I add the follow thing on the births section of the article:

Kaitlyn Maher

Can I?

69.236.175.82 (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Drew Harris

Yes, I've replaced it. My mistake. ... discospinster _talk 02:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

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

• http://web.archive.org/web/20050909142010/http://www.etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/2004/01/27/1075168255.htm
  • In 2004 on 2011-05-25 07:41:43, 403 Forbidden
  • In 2004 on 2011-06-11 07:35:10, 403 Forbidden

--

Just wondering why the table of contents is not shown. It appears that someone made a conscious decision to put the "NOTOC" command in the article to block the table of contents from showing up. I'm guessing they did that because it's so long. You have to scroll down the page a bit to find the beginning of the article. However, I think it's still useful. One can always click the "hide" button if they don't want to see it. If no one comments on this in the next few days, I'll remove the "NOTOC" command. Maestroso simplo (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have received no comment on this and have thus removed the "NOTOC" template from the article. I found that User:Ludde23 added it at 11:08, January 21, 2011 as seen in this revision: [1] with no explanation. I plan to remove it from all other Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years articles. Maestroso simplo (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)