Talk:2004/Archive 2

message: 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.<BR>— 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?<BR>— 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)
replies: text: Thank you.  That's quite sufficient.  --Simetrical 22:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV removal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Splitting up the page: discussion to reach consensus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Arguments in favor

message: 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)
thread_title: Mediation acceptance

message: I just want to say that adding some pictures REALLY brightens up this page.  142.58.181.84 23:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures are worth a 1000 words 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Offspring of famous people 

message: The question of whether a given birth is notable or not can be subjective.  However if we seem to include every minor royal then why exclude some others?  Is it consistent to include Leo Blair and Cruz Beckham (see 2000 and 2005)?  (I know the Blairs and the Beckhams are acting a bit like royalty, but is that the justification?)  British prime ministers come and go, but how many women have made it to the world top 10 chess players?  And should these matters be treated as a minor edit? PatGallacher 19:13, 2005 May 16 (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)
thread_title: Notable births?

message: 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)
replies: text: Each month already has its own article (January 2004, February 2004, etc.), so we could probably stand to pare down some of the events. - jredmond 19:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: 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)
thread_title: Illustrations

message: The image :Image:Killdozer.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* 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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Killdozer.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I've replaced it.  My mistake.  ... discospinster talk 02:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kaitlyn Maher]] 

message: 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
--JeffGBot (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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:   with no explanation. I plan to remove it from all other Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years articles. Maestroso simplo (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Table of Contents? (NOTOC)