Jump to content

Talk:2001

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ponyo (talk | contribs) at 22:36, 14 November 2023 (→‎Births and deaths proposal: note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Event Collage?

Out of all the post 1980 articles, 1991 and 2001 don't have them? Why is it that? 2600:1700:4191:5340:847B:BBF2:8684:3E0F (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2001 collage was contested for being US-centric (which it was). I also don't really see the utility in trying to summarize an entire year into a single picture. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's never been agreed that all articles should have them. Deb (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The0Quester I think the 2001 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak is not significant enough as it was merely a domestic incident in the UK and did not result in any human cases fatalities. Deb has also opposed including this event in the collage proposal, and personally, I would prefer it to be replaced with the 2001 insurgency in Macedonia. Nagae Iku (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I disagree with its usage as well and feel its inappropriate to summarize the year with an image collage. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 12:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe a collage is inappropriate. Not only is it subjective and contentious what to include in what's essentially "the most important events of the year", but it's now redundant since the article is more comprehensive and images can be put in the body. I expect to expand more year articles (presumably in the next few months), and I expect to remove any collages as image space becomes available in the body. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this is really frustrating. The editors who made these collages and I spent a lot of time creating them, but would it be possible to solve the dispute over event selection by increasing the collage capacity to a 16-grid layout? Nagae Iku (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 12:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2001/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freedom4U (talk · contribs) 18:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be doing this review over the coming days. :3 F4U (they/it) 18:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First round

Spotcheck

Random spotcheck of 28 sources:

4. The source, which is a primary source (if it had lasting impacts there should be secondary sources on it), since its the newspaper report from the time period, does not call it the EDSA revolution, though it does compare the incident to it. No copyvio.

11. Neither the link nor the archive works. I suspect, given that its a primary source, that I'll have to defer to my statement for ref 4.

24. No copyvio/Verified

28. No copyvio/Verified

32. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source (military treaty)

49. Source states single largest defeat, but does not describe it as the first major offensive by American and Northern Alliance forces. No copyvio - Primary source. (newspaper)

62. No copyvio/Verified

67. Press release from the time period. Does not verify sentence. No copyvio.

78. No copyvio/Verified

81. Source states they're the original ones (rather than a new line?). No copyvio.

101. No copyvio/Verified - Is aviation24 a reliable source?

104. No copyvio/Verified

108. No copyvio/Verified

122. 750 page report with no page numbers cited.

139. No copyvio/Verified

152. No copyvio/Verified - perhaps [1] might be a better ref

156. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

158. Perhaps Freedom of Mobile Multimedia Access might be worth linking there. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

177. ?? - The title of the source is "Japanese Colleges and Universities"; I don't have access, but I highly doubt that this is the right ref

184. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

188. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

189. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

202. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

203. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

213. No copyvio - The numbers don't match the ref.

222. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

248. No copyvio - The ref doesn't mention the Ukrainian Air Force.

256. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

258. No copyvio/Verified

My broad comments after going through these sources is that the article relies way too heavily on primary sources (particularly press releases or primary source documents which should definitely be replaced, but also breaking news reports from the time period). I would also suggest you go through the article and verify every source.

Missing items

I believe there are some items that are not covered in the article that should be; or are listed in the article, but should be included as prose. I'll add more as I find them.

Potentially added as prose?
  • Founding of Wikipedia
  • China's entry into the WTO had long lasting impacts

Lede

At the moment, the lede is far too small and doesn't adequately cover the content of the article. For example, it lacks any coverage of the culture section, the climate section, the population section, or the economy section.

Population

The "Population" section should really be better titled "Demographics". Also I don't think the see also is appropriate here.

  • The world population on January 1, 2001, was estimated to be 6.190 billion people, and it increased to 6.272 billion people by January 1, 2002. - Remove "it"
  • 2001 was designated as International Year of Volunteers by the United Nations. Necessary?
  • The number of global refugees in 2001 was approximately 12 million. Awkward phrasing

Conflicts

  • Ref 26 appears to be a pretty good source and should really be the kind of source used for the rest of the article.
  • The Bandaranaike Airport attack was a deadly attack Could be phrased better to provide more information and less repetition
  • on April 18, and I would suggest replacing the , and with a semicolon
  • notable conflict The source says its the only interstate conflict
  • The Second Intifada marked increased conflict between Israel and Palestine in 2001 when terrorists affiliated with Hamas carried out suicide bombings and other attacks on Israeli citizens. Both refs here are primary sources and the sentence appears to vastly oversimplify the conflict. See: [2]
  • The September 11 attacks by Al-Qaeda took place when 19 terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes and crashed two of them into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one near Stonycreek Township, Pennsylvania. 2,977 people were killed; the attacks and the subsequent global war on terror were events that defined 2001. Unwieldy sentence that should be split. I would note that The September 11 attacks by Al-Qaeda took place specifically is pretty awkward phrasing.
  • The United States demanded that the Taliban extradite Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and end state-sponsored terrorism in Afghanistan. Ref needed. NYTimes article doesn't state that.
  • invasion of Afghanistan Should be wikilinked
  • intensifying the ongoing Afghan Civil War Not verified
  • Why is Hamid Karzai wikilinked the third time he's mentioned, instead of here?
  • Wikilink to Afghan Interim Administration

Other

@Thebiguglyalien: Sorry for taking a bit over the seven days! This was a long article and it took a while to get through it. These are just my initial comments, I'll add more in a new section once I give it a few more reads. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that this is a sort of "trial run" for years articles as GA nominations. Currently the only one is 1346, and that one is a bit different given the different level of coverage for that era. I've also been working on 2002, where I put more focus on secondary sources. I could definitely copy over some of the sourcing methodology from that article. But with all that said, any feedback for this as its own article is helpful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom4U, I'm sorry, I've been neglecting my own GA nominations to review others this month. Now that the GA drive should be finishing up in a few days, I can hopefully focus most of my wiki-attention on this. So presumably the first step is to start putting together some secondary sources (like I said, 2002 is an example of such an article with secondary sources). I'll get started on that soon unless you have any thoughts. The other thing is the timeline: the general consensus so far has been to leave those in as the rest of the article is expanded, but that raises questions about sourcing and inclusion criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom4U, it took longer than I had hoped, but I've redone the sourcing for the article's prose, and I think it's much stronger now. I have yet to get into the events timeline, because that's a little trickier. I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#How should year timelines be sourced? to elaborate on the issue and see if anyone else has feedback. It looks like this is probably going to be the main obstacle to promotion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: Thanks for the ping, you've got my attention right as I've gotten a lot of free time again to edit again :) I've looked at the changes and here's just a few things I've noticed while reading it.
  • It escalated as terrorists affiliated with Hamas carried out attacks on Israeli citizens and the Israeli military responded with strikes against Palestine. This doesn't appear to match the text of the source. In particular, it doesn't specifically single out Hamas nor does it call the Palestinians terrorists. The article also doesn't reflect the weight the source provides in describing Israel's response as disproportionate. The source also doesn't describe the attacks as "tit for tat", which the article seems to suggest.
  • I'm loving the additions to the art section. I knew there was more material to expand that out.
  • I'm unsure about whether we should really be weighting [3] (cited in A lawsuit sought to break up Microsoft as a monopoly, but it was unsuccessful.) Partially because the link includes "/blog/" and also partially because it doesn't seem to reflect our article on the subject.
  • amid its own religious disputes Taking from the source, perhaps better to rephrase this as amid the introduction of Islamic law.
  • The Incheon International Airport Remove "The".
  • I know there's some level of an intersection between politics and law, but I think perhaps some of the politics section would better fall under a "Law" section (stuff determined by lawmakers in "Politics" and stuff determined by courts/lawyers in "Law"). The last two paragraphs of "International" and certain parts of the last paragraph of "Domestic" might be better served by such a section.
  • The mini paragraph on the two coups might benefit from being moved up to make it the second paragraph of the section.
  • The mini paragraph on education doesn't seem to fit in the "Science" section. If anything (other than making education its own section), I think it might better fit in politics.
Good work on all the improvements. I definitely think that some of the removals could be re-added given more sources. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 08:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing we need to be careful on providing undue weight for sources from institutions like the World Bank, IMF, UN, EU, etc., as opposed to academic sources and reviews. Anyways, speaking of the EU, I found this report from EIRO which may provide useful sourcing for economic data. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 09:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This Lancet article might help with demographics and health. This Lancet article might help with health. It's a shame this article on prisons is US-only, but it might still be helpful. Potentially this article (I can't access it atm because Sage is upgrading their site) on Islamophobia post 9/11. There's this article on ethnic violence in southern Thailand between 2001-03. (I've found these sources thanks to the "intitle:2001" keyword which I just learned existed for Google Scholar)
In addition, I think the 2001 Ukrainian political crisis could be added as prose and the inclusion of the 2001 Ethiopian withdrawal from Eritrea following a peace agreement would also be justified. I also think national-level legislative elections definitely can be included in the article--of which, there was the 2001 Polish parliamentary election, the 2001 Singaporean general election, among others (I mean the 2001 UK elections are basically equivalent to these and they're included). eBay is also capitalized incorrectly in the article and when discussing the Argentine economic crisis, it should include a wikilink to December 2001 riots in Argentina.
My suggestions for expansion here don't really come from the broadness criteria, but rather from the neutrality criteria, as I think their current exclusion are reflective of systemic bias. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 10:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main change I made since we started this a couple months ago was switching from fact-first to source-first writing—something I'm trying to do in all of my editing. So I've tried not to say "I need to find a source for this event". Instead, my workflow has been to find a source that covers the year or one very general aspect of it internationally and then to summarize its main points. The Britannica Year in Review and Time Annual listed below were really helpful with this, as was the Annual Register that I found. Intergovernmental and NGO reports were also really helpful, and I don't think using them is significantly different than using an academic source as far as GA is concerned. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rewrote the Intifada summary. I want to keep it simple, and more importantly, I have zero desire for the Palestine/Israel obsessives to swarm around this article and squabble about every word for months, as they tend to do. I've sourced it to my go-to general source, the Britannica Year in Review, which had a simple one paragraph summary of the events.
  • I wasn't sure about the list of artists who were subjects of exhibitions, but if it works, then great.
  • I've removed the sentence on Microsoft's court case, for the reasons you specified and because
  • Great idea for law. I had trouble deciding whether a few of those belonged in domestic or international, so this is a natural solution.
  • I was also unsure about the education controversies, and politics is a nice fit for them. I think the opening of a university fits better under science than politics though. Like you said, the alternative would be to create a separate education section, but there's not enough international education info in a given year to justify that.
  • I made the other minor grammar and formatting changes.
Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom4U, we've had this open for a few months now. Hopefully we can wrap it up. In your opinion, are any further changes needed before this meets the GA criteria? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien I'm sorry for the lack of reply. I'm just writing this so that you know I've seen your message. I've been reading through the article and I believe there shouldn't be anything holding up promotion. Expect another reply soon. Cheers ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment by Igguage

It's really nice to see someone working on the individual year articles, I hope we get to see many more of them from you!

I think it would be a good idea to rely more on yearbooks and the like, e.g. Britannica 2001: The Year in Review and Time Annual 2002. It would be more appropriate for this type of article to include to a greater degree what reliable secondary sources consider to be the most important events, rather than what Wikipedia editors think is most important.

(I haven't read the books I mentioned so I don't know if they are good/reliable sources or not, it was just to give some examples)

Igguage (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Igguage Ah, those were the kinds of books I was trying to find! I completely forgot that I could search libraries (and cough shadow libraries) for books instead of using Google which failed to give good results. I see also:
  • 2001 Annual Review of Development Effectiveness: Making Choices from the World Bank
  • AIDS Clinical Review 2000 2001 from Paul Volberding, along with many other year in review fro the sciences, but I believe that section is reasonably well-sourced
  • Review of Fisheries in Oecd Countries: Country Statistics 1999-2001 from the OECD
  • The World Health Report 2001: Mental Health : New Understanding, New Hope from the WHO
  • Advocate: Webster's Timeline History, 2001 - 2007
  • The World in Photographs: 2001 from AFP
The one big thing is that because these sources are all going to be in the English language (presuming you don't speak another language), and like many other articles, but even more here, is going to be the subject of English-language bias and bias for the global north. :3 F4U (they/it) 12:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh this appears to be your first edit to Wikipedia, how exactly did you find this GA review? :3 F4U (they/it) 12:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its my first edit with the account. I have read Wikipedia for a long time, and have also made several edits as an IP =) Igguage (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Looks good! ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 08:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"Births and deaths" section

I tried to figure it out how to use "births and deaths" section that was split as per discussion on January 2023 and March 2023 RfC, later it changed to "See also" as section is not appropriate for year articles. In that case, "births and deaths" could be a conventional section layout and WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE for WP:YEARS. 112.205.179.117 (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't create empty sections just to use hatnotes. There is no reason why a see also section is not appropriate for year articles. If there are see also links, we usually put them in the see also section unless there's a good reason not to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We implement this recently-created style guide as an essay on style regarding to "births and deaths" section. For example like this, a year 2012 section is replaced with "births and deaths" section alongside with {{Main}} hatnote. 112.205.179.117 (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what is done on a different article or in some essay. It doesn't make sense to have a heading just for some hatnotes. They should be replaced with a see also section in all of these articles. Maybe included in a navigational template somewhere. But not just thrown in under an otherwise unused heading. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, "births and deaths" section will be fine. As the style guide, that intend to apply all articles while focusing on the project's scope. 112.205.179.117 (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2001 collage image candidates

Give your opinion on what topics should be included in the 2001 collage

feel free to add a subject 4me689 (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A1, B, C1, D4, E1, F2, G, and K. 4me689 (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors have already asked you to stop with these collages. They're unnecessary, and they present major original research and POV problems. Broad subject topics like this typically don't have a lead image at all for this reason. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to this logic, may I ask why there are collages in the decade's article and the German Wikipedia's year article? Nagae Iku (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because German Wikipedia has different guidelines from English Wikipedia, and the decade articles have different guidelines from the year articles. Deb (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still support the original collage, which has been modified multiple times after Deb's criticism and no longer has the original problems of stretched and distorted images/US-centric/replacement of domestic disasters that did not result in casualties. However, Deb still insists on removing it, well, I have nothing else to say. Alternatively, my proposed alternative could be implemented: expanding the 8 grid to 16 grid, which may reduce disputes over image selection. Nagae Iku (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The POV toward a particular country is just one of the many issues with the collages. They never should have been added in the first place, and editors have been telling 4me689 this for at least a year now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Deb and @Thebiguglyalien. Maybe we shouldn't do this. DementiaGaming (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think they add great value to article in giving the reader an immediate impression of some of the major events during the year. It's not original research in the sense that they are taken from lists by reliable sources over major events during the year. Marginataen (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why, but I can't reply to the post where you chose the collage's events. So, I'll share my thoughts here: I think the empty space could be replaced with the 2001 Mars Odyssey or the first space tourist. The first asteroid landing or the Indonesian immigrant boat tragedy that caused the death of 353 people (mostly women and children) would also be good options. Nagae Iku (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Mars Odyssey should be the last image in it Gennicyro4 (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I've updated by original draft. I've really considered 2001 Mars Odyssey and the other events. First, there's really no image of the Odyssey that either fits or can be cropped into a square. There's no other event I sincerely find that important. With such a monumental event as the September 11 attacks, I believe we are right to include a second image of the attack, namely the Pentagon crash. That's my suggestion at least. Marginataen (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the 2001 Mars Odyssey had square images that you did not carefully search for：
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Mars_Odyssey_over_Valles_Marineris_illustration.jpg
Secondly, I do not recommend including two images of the 9/11 attacks as this may be seen as promoting US–centrism. Personally, I do not mind the proposal of including the two 9/11 images, but some people may strongly object. The first version of the 2001 collage also had two images related to 9/11 (the attacks themselves and the War on Terror), which were deleted numerous times by Deb. Nagae Iku (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a draft. I've used the original logo of Wikipedia from 2001 and not the later version and as well as another image of the crisis in Argentina. I've removed the Nepalese royal massacre and replaced it with a question mark. This means that I'm an not sure and think it is something to be discussed as there are other candidates. My draft can be seen below:

Clockwise, from top left: The American company Enron is hit by a major scandal • The euro is introduced as a multi-national currency in the European Union • A T-55 tank and crew in Aračinovo during the Macedonia insurgency • U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom • An earthquake in Gujarat kills 13,805–20,023 people • An IDF soldier as the Second Intifada against Israel continues • Police and protesters in Buenos Aires, Argentina during the Argentinazo riots • Four coordinated Islamist suicide terrorist attacks, known as the September 11 attacks, are carried out by the Islamist terrorist organization Al-Qaeda against the United States • American soldiers in Afghanistan as the U.S. initiates the war of terror, a global counterterrorism military campaign following the September 11 attacks • Smoke coming out of The Pentagon after being hit by the third plane in the September 11 attacks
I've notified the people on Wikipedia:WikiProject Years to ensure that everyone gets a say--Marginataen (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we do this, Wikipedia shouldn't be on here - it is illogical, as Wikipedia did not reach its peak popularity until years later. We should replace it with another war on terror event, like the torture of Afghanis at the prison in Guantanamo Bay. DementiaGaming (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, its like MySpace for 2003 or Facebook or Twitter etc... it makes no sense. Gennicyro4 (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind - replace it with the Enron scandal or American Airlines Flight 587. DementiaGaming (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update on source-guided coverage versus OR coverage

I've used year in review books by Time and Britannica to build basis for the article, in addition to some reports for specific subjects. I'm mainly writing this here for posterity, though I'd be elated if anyone else had ideas.

Demographics, conflicts, architecture and art, media, environment and weather, and health all largely use this better sourcing. Sports, economy, politics, religion, and science and technology still have significant "handpicked" content. The events timeline is still entirely handpicked, and there doesn't seem to be any immediately solution for it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and changed some of the content and sourcing, so now it better reflects what the sources indicate as major aspects of the year, and the events aren't dependent on sources from 2001 or 2002. That just leaves the events timeline at the bottom. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collage depreciation

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Lead_image, a discussion on whether to depreciate collages in general in going on. Please share your thoughts.--Marginataen (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Births and deaths proposal

As we discussed above, should we add "births and deaths" to this "Events" section below, which are three notable persons born in 2001, and notable event within list article, which it provide WP:NLIST:

Extended content
Main pages: Category:2001 births and Deaths in 2001

Prominent people born in 2001 included Rachel Zegler,[1] Dixie D'Amelio[2] and Billie Eilish.[3] The United States in particular saw 2,977 people killed during the September 11 attacks.[4][5] The year witnessed the passing of world leaders Laurent-Désiré Kabila,[6] Ahmad Shah Massoud[7] and Giovanni Leone;[8] and musicians Aaliyah[9] and George Harrison.[10]

References

  1. ^ @rachelzegler (3 May 2022). "it's m'birffffdayyyyy" – via Instagram.
  2. ^ "Inside Dixie D'Amelio's 21st Birthday Celebration in Las Vegas With Charli D'Amelio and Landon Barker". E! Online. 14 August 2022. Retrieved 27 October 2023.
  3. ^ Nast, Condé (19 December 2022). "Billie Eilish Wore a Santa Minidress to Her 21st Birthday Party". Teen Vogue. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Nadeem-2021 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference UN OCT-2021 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ "Assassinat de Laurent-Désiré Kabila : 20 ans plus tard, le mystère reste entier" [Assassination of Laurent-Désiré Kabila: 20 years later, the mystery remains unsolved]. RTBF (in French). 15 January 2021. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
  7. ^ "Death of an Afghan icon: 20 years since the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud". France 24. 9 September 2021. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
  8. ^ "Morto Giovanni Leone, il presidente del caso Moro" [Giovanni Leone, the president of the Moro case, dies]. la Repubblica. Rome. 9 November 2001. Archived from the original on 9 November 2001. Retrieved 27 October 2023.
  9. ^ "It's Been 20 Years Since R&B Singer Aaliyah Died In A Plane Crash". NPR. 25 August 2021. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
  10. ^ Namee, Dalton Mac (29 November 2021). "Today Marks 20 Years Since George Harrison Passed Away". Nova.ie. Retrieved 26 October 2023.

81.23.193.94 (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the births you mention, Billie Eilish seems the only one that comes anywhere near the level of notability we'd need, and I don't think any of their births can be called "events". Deb (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just the same block evader who continues to post this same content to this talk page. It can be disregarded.-- Ponyobons mots 22:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2001&oldid=1185154955"