Talk:2013

Inclusion of the Murder of Lee Rigby

A while ago I added the Murder of Lee Rigby to this article and I note it has been removed on the grounds it was "not an international event". Having checked other similar articles, there are often numerous other murders listed as events which are either of equal or clearly lesser notability than Rigby's. For example, 1993 includes the murders of Stephen Lawrence, James Bulger, Brandon Teena and Euronymous. None of these murders were international events, none had terrorist links, none were in such prominent locations and carried out so publicly, none were as brutal, none had the same media coverage and in cases such as Lawrence's there isn't even a clear attempt to ensure the death of the victim. On top of all this, there actually slso are actuallyseveral international elements to the Rigby case. Firstly there'a a great deal of international coverage, the guilty pair were were of Nigerian origin, they were influenced by international terror groups, they cited foreign wars as justification for their actions, it appears to have inspired a copycat attack in France and even the COBRA committee was called in response to the attack. Now it may well be the case that some of the 1993 examples have been added in error and require removal, but seeing as the Rigby case easily matches every single one of them in terms on notability and international scope then it surely belongs in this article without any doubt.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the significance of Lee Rigby's death was probably far greater than it should have been because of sensationalised reporting, immediate assumptions of organised, international terrorist involvement, and the subsequent, fairly irrational, broad scale, anti-Muslim backlash. This was all long before anyone had been brought to trial. So it's not so much the murder that was in the news, but the reaction. I'm not quite sure how we should report that. As for the older events you mention, James Bulger's death certainly got international coverage. There have also been different standards applied to what goes in the articles for older years. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Rigby murder was actually highly notable in itself for all the reasons I outlined above. Yes there's a great deal that followed it, but the Rigby murder is the key event to focus on for this article as it was the trigger for everything else. If the text I previously added needs improving then I'd be happy to work with others to come up with a more nuanced version. However, the event clearly needs including in some form rather than just being deleted, and it's significantly more notable than say Canada modifying its political stance on deserts.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A number of WP:RY patrollers will keep an eye out and remove anything that does not fit the strict notability guidelines. If you want to see this in action, add he-who-shall-remain-off-the-list to the death list and watch it get deleted faster than a ClueBot reversion.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Which guideline are you saying this case doesn't meet? Certainly the previous justification for removal has been debunked above and the consensus of this discussion seems to be in favour inclusion in some form.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Update, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. We're not suggesting to add Rigby to the death list, that would clearly not meet notability guidelines. Instead we're going to documenting his murder and the aftermath as an event.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

OK so I guess my original text failed to cover subsequent events sufficiently, my apologies for that. I'll use the following version instead:"Off duty British soldier Lee Rigby murdered by two Muslim converts in a terror attack in Woolwich, London. The event is believed to have inspired a copycat attack in France and also led to an anti-Muslim backlash in the UK. Rigby's murder resulted in the government setting up a task force for stemming the growth of Islamic extremism in Britain"

I see nothing in the murder of lee Rigby that makes it a sufficiently notable event to merit inclusion. The claim that "Having checked other similar articles, there are often numerous other murders listed as events which are either of equal or clearly lesser notability than Rigby's." not only runs counter to WP:OTHERSTUFF but the example year of 1993 does not come under the scope of WP:RY. And as there is no consensus, yet, that this be included I'll remove it, again. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well even ignoring the differing policies for pre-2002 material the Rigby case clearly passes WP:RY. Furthermore the previous justification for deletion has been shown to be incorrect and the new version addresses the points raised above. If anyone here actually against inclusion (as an event, not as a death) then please can they state what aspect of the criteria the case fails to meet. Alternatively, if editors are unhappy with the specific wording then please go ahead and suggest a better version. Thanks. --Shakehandsman (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It does not "clearly pass WP:RY". As stated this is "the minimum requirement for inclusion" is reportage on 3 continents. Any event which has no apparent impact outside a single country is not considered to be historically and internationally notable enough. That is clearly the case here. As a comparable event the 2011 Tucson shooting had considerable media coverage but no impact outside the US and has been excluded as a result of talk page consensus here, here and here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well if the Tucson shooting had no impact outside the US then I agree with the decision there completely, a completely domestic incident such as that is no a valid comparison with the Rugby case which has so many international dimensions. One of the perpetrators was deported from Kenya after being suspected of terrorism related offences. There's also links to MI5 and Al-Shabaab, and the motivation for the attack was claimed to be in relation to international wars and British foreign policy. Most significantly of all, the murder is widely believed to have inspired a copycat attack in France, an event itself notable enough to even have its own article! The Rigby article itself certainly needs work to include more appropriate coverage of these international dimensions, but I don't think any such deficiencies in the article should impact on appropriate inclusion here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

When the "international dimensions" you speak of depend on qualified words like "believed to be" and "claimed", they don't seem to solid enough to justify this item. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well those phrases only apply to the last item on the list, but at least your argument makes some sense for that one issue. I suppose ideally we need to go through the sources for that incident to asses the strength of the link, though unfortunately my French and knowledge of French news research resources isn't really strong enough to be able to carry out such a task. I still think this passes the criteria, it's undeniably international in its impact and scope, the only debate is on the extent of this.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Translational Research Institute

The Translational Research Institute opened on the 10th of October 2013. It is the world's first Translational research facility and is the largest medical research center in the Southern Hemisphere. I believe this is noteworthy and should be added. There are events in there such as the Bali meeting which are less important than this.--Empire of War (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, it would need to have an article here. Translational Research Institute is a disambiguation page listing six existing organisations with that name around the world. Your claim of "world's first" is looking shaky. Then you would need to demonstrate international significance. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's website and media lists it as the world's first TRI, it's international significance is that it is the largest medical research facility in the Southern Hemisphere. Also why do you follow me Hi-Lo?--Empire of War (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Its website is not a reliable source for such statements. So, which media (apart from those that copied the institute's PR material) recognizes its importance? — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul Walker

Paul Walker is easily more recognized on a worldwide scale. If you need to keep your pretentious scales balanced, just switch out another person. Rusted AutoParts 16:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, unless by "worldwide scale" you refer to Western teenagers. Sanger is vastly more important, one of the very few double Nobel laureates and a person who has improved the livelihood of many with his discoveries. Replacing his picture with that of a short-term teen idol would be ridiculous in an encyclopedia. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You slam my statement as an opinion, yet yours is too. Walker's been frequently mentioned in news and media before and after his death. Perhaps it's best if pictures just don't get added so squabbles don't erupt. Rusted AutoParts 17:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Google Trends clearly show that mainstream media interest in Paul Walker was and is virtually non-existent outside the peak caused by his unexpected death, while the baseline for Sanger is ~10 mentions per month, plus the peak at the time of his death. But that's just my opinion. If anybody deserves the designation "world's top scientist", Sanger was pretty close to it. I think we should celebrate people like that, not just entertainers. They are everywhere else. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it considered uncivil to claim you're a hipster? "Fuck the mainstream!", am i rite? Rusted AutoParts 23:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, fuck the infantilizing anti-intelectualism of the Hollywood gossip machinery. But yes, I consider you comment uncivil. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There are too many entertainers in Recent Year articles, largely a result of media hype and recentism. An internationally recognised scientist is more worthy of inclusion than a "popular" actor who never won an international acting award. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who 50th anniversary special

Although an international event, I think it probably belongs only in 2013 in television; perhaps as the most notable event there, but not here. Comments?

(And, yes, I am a Doctor Who fan. I just don't think the event belongs in the year article.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't belong here as anniversaries are excluded from RY articles unless they are sufficiently notable to have an article of their own. And I have watched my fair share of episodes as well, mostly the first 5 Doctors. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is (probably) the first Doctor Who episode to be shown on "the big screen" (through Fathom events). but I don't see that as sufficiently notable, either. If it were the first TV episode to be shown on "the big screen", that might be worthy of some note, but I doubt that it is the case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Technically it does have an article. I would find it more notable if it were an actual 50 years of continuous (as in uninterrupted) time.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)