Talk:2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2007 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-15. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

What on earth does "do away with the leap year" mean? You can't add a quarter of a day to the calendar without compensating somehow - it's not like we'll suddenly add 6 hours to our clocks each year. If someone can explain this (or link to an article that does), feel free to revert my erasing that particular comment (it's in december) Archtemplar 07:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Either someone's making it up for a laugh, or they've come across an article from exactly 33 days ago and haven't twigged the publication date yet. Average Earthman 09:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Internet and technology news?

is it time that new media and consumer electronics got their own year page? If nobody minds, I'm gonna make one up. Kripto 05:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 11 is a Tuesday

September 11 2007 will land on a Tuesday for the first time since the attacks on New York and Washington D.C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.6.138.34 (talk • contribs).

An interesting statistical note, but not notable for the article. Any given date will recurr on the same day of the week every 5 or 6 years. Erath 11:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
6. --AAA! (AAAA) 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It goes 6, 5, 6, 11 (due to leap years). Proto ► 10:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future Japanese dates

Please help resolve the issue raised in Talk:Heisei#Future Japanese dates. `'mikka (t) 15:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of Wrestlemania 23

There's multiple users reverting and re-reverting the inclusion of Wrestlemania 23 as a notable enough event for the article. So let's talk here about getting some consensus and resolving this dispute.

  • Which I'll start off with the same comments I put in TJ Spyke's talk page: I don't think it belongs because it isn't a competitive sporting event and lacks international exposure. I am not saying "I hate (professional) wrestling because it's fake" nor am I telling everyone I'm right because I edit the page a significant amount. Erath 00:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for taking this to the talk page instead of reverting relentlessly. I'm glad that there are still a few editors on Wikipedia that show common courtesy. Now about the issue, correct me if I'm wrong but the section of Expected events contains content from a wide a variety of categories. From the 79th Academy Awards to a note on Microsoft releasing Windows Vista. From the New Horizons space probe to the 52nd Eurovision Song Contest. From the National Eisteddfod of Wales to a Halo 3 release date. The point I'm trying to make is that nowhere does the section state that all content must be sports related. This basically makes your argument on deleting the WrestleMania 23 entry simply because of it not being a sport irrelevant. Now, I'm not trying to argue whether or not Wrestling is a sport. But on notability, I suggest you try out google for a hit count. -- bulletproof 3:16 00:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
WrestleMania is a very notable event, with people coming from all over the world to watch and being broadcast in around 100 countries. While it's true that it's not a real competition because the results are pre-determined, that doesn't away from it's significance. Bulletproof already said what else I was was going to say. TJ Spyke 00:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, I think its lack of competition takes everything away from it - it stops being something in which an incredible achivement can be earned, which would severely increase its notability. I'm not denying it's popular; but it's merely an entertainment production, and as such, I don't think it's a major event. I never said the content had to be sports related; I'm saying it would be more notable if it was. And if the Halo 3 release date is there, I'm about to get rid of it. Erath 00:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I see no harm in you expressing your view on what makes and what doesn't make something notable. However, the only reason you have to remove the content is because of it not being a sport, which in your own Point of View takes away from its notability. So how can an event such as the 52nd Eurovision Song Contest or Microsoft releasing Windows Vista be notable enough for the section on Expected events yet at the same time not be a sport at all? -- bulletproof 3:16 01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't my point... I'm trying to find the right words here. Of course non-sports can be notable; in fact, many of the sporting events were recently deemed not notable enough and shunted off to 2007 in sports. What I want to say is that its scripted nature ultimately detracts from its notability - that it's not a competition, and I think that scunners it on notability grounds. Erath 09:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm the one (or one of the ones) who has been shunting off many of the sporting events to the 2007 in sports article, but I certainly wouldn't move professional wrestling in the same way, as it never gets covered in the sporting sections of major newspapers so it's an entertainment, not a sport (and thus a consensus fact of the media, not my own POV). So wrestling should be compared to the other TV entertainment events, and judged by worldwide figures (and I mean a real one, which is the number who actually watch it, not the number who have a TV set in a country where one of the 200+ TV channels shows it). As for why not wrestling when Microsoft's Vista is in, well a simple matter of sales. Microsoft expect sales in the hundreds of millions over four years (reasonably - they dominate the OS market and there are over 600 million PCs worldwide). I'd be rather surprised if this Wrestlemania hit 10 million worldwide. It's about as important as a new episode of Spongebob Squarepants. Average Earthman 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And now someone's just tried to add Survivor Series. Is it as "big" as Wrestlemania? Are all the different "showcase" events like this? We sure aren't going to include them all! Erath 19:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Survivor Series is not as notable as WrestleMania 23 as it is not shown live to a world wide audience as WrestleMania is. -- bulletproof 3:16 23:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's a perfect metric. Given the expansion of TV channels, it is quite possible to show something to multiple nations that still fails to get a worldwide audience of anywhere near 10 million. Is the Superbowl irrelevent because 95% of the people watching are of one nationality? Or is it relevent because 90 million people are watching it? Personally, I feel we can make more use of the 2007 in television article. Average Earthman 09:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I am as big a fan of wrestling as the next guy, but it really has no place here. I mean, this page is to display the highlights of the year, you will forgive me if i don't feel that Wrestlemania 23 is on that list. Now, I edited the page without seeing the talk page first, for that I stand corrected and admonished fairly. It just seems out of place here in my opinion, which is all I am giving of course. - Kaobear 19:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's a week without comment now. Can we come to a decision, or do we have to resort to a straw poll? Erath 12:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The date can be deleted if it means that much to you. -- bulletproof 3:16 15:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
No need to be hostile. I started a discussion, and it's reached its end... a conclusion has to be found sometime. If it "meant so much to me", I'd have already deleted it and kept reverting its addition. Instead I wanted to try and have a civilised discussion on it. Erath 15:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Not being hostile. I'm just literally saying if you really feel like the entry doesn't belong in the article then by all means go ahead and remove it. I hope you didn't get that the wrong way. -- bulletproof 3:16 16:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, I think the cricket world cup should be removed as well since cricket is a minor sport that isn't even a major sport. WrestleMania is more importent than it. TJ Spyke 02:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Quoting verbatim from the Cricket article:

“ Cricket has been an established team sport for several centuries. It originated in its modern form in England and is popular mainly in the present and former members of the Commonwealth. In some countries in South Asia, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, cricket is by far the most popular sport. Cricket is also a major sport in England and Wales, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Zimbabwe and the English-speaking countries of the Caribbean, which are collectively known in cricketing parlance as the West Indies. There are also well established amateur club competitions in countries as diverse as the Netherlands, Kenya, Nepal, and Argentina (see also: International Cricket Council). ”

Now that's a large proportion of the world's population. How can it possibly be a minor sport? Erath 11:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

first of all brother WWE is the worlds richest and most popular wrestling company and it is to have set an attendance record hows that for minor? 244pupil6(im Eraths brother)11:12, 8 Febuary 2007.

[edit] Tony Blair's resignation

We've had some disagreement on this, so what's the best way to handle Tony Blair's announcement that he intends to step down before the 2007 Labour Conference? We've had some ideas before, off the top of the head they include:

  1. An entry for May 4 or May 31, media speculation of Blair's retirement date in The Sun etc.
  2. An entry for the Labour Party conference in September by which the new leader should be addressing the party
  3. An entry for "Unknown date" of the year for his resignation
  4. No entry whatsoever

Favourites? Erath 12:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The section on Gordon Brown stepping down is, as far as I can tell, a fiction? If not, perhaps it should be reworded to be clearer, or cited? 82.69.35.36 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of F1 2007

Sorry if this is a bit late, but I'm asking if the start of the 2007 Formula One season can be added to the list? This season is notable for the following reasons:

  • First time in 5 years a single tyre manufacturer has supplied the entire field.
  • First time in 16 years that Michael Schumacher hasn't entered the season
  • First time since 1986 that the Cosworth engines haven't been used by a single team
  • First time ever a black driver has entered Formula One (Lewis Hamilton).

Anyway, I'd prefer to hear your suggestions before I (possibly) put the F1 season back into this article.--Skully Collins Edits 07:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

These are interesting statistical points from a Formula One point of view, but none is a major international event. 2007 in sports is the article to include it in, in my opinion. Erath 21:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Then how come the Cricket World Cup is on this list? How is Cricket a "major sport"?--Skully Collins Edits 08:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You will find a comment at the end of the section titled "Inclusion of Wrestlemania 23" about cricket being a major sport. Erath 18:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter

Erath's recent edit summary says, 'Harry Potter does have a large popularity, but that doesn't make it an internationally notable event. It's not going to top news reels for days and days.'

I'm sorry, but every part of that statement is so at variance with reality I have to truly wonder why it was written. To cite only a few news articles from the launch of the previous book:

All found during a brief search. --CalendarWatcher 04:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a popular book. Doesn't my edit summary say that, or is that "completely at variance with reality" also? So is the Bible. On a relevant subject, so is, for instance, Guinness World Records (the the best-selling copyrighted book series in the world). Potter 7, as of now, has no release date and no information whatsoever on its content aside from its status as the series' finale. Its inclusion is nothing but crystall-ballism owing to the popularity of its predecessors, and in my mind, I don't think that's enough. If enough of the community think otherwise, then include it - but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Erath 19:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
'Yeah, it's a popular book. Doesn't my edit summary say that, or is that "completely at variance with reality" also? ' That was the only true portion of the entire summary, and I apologize for not mentioning it. The rest, however, was untrue (wildly so) and still remains untrue. Or did you fail to notice that? --CalendarWatcher 22:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Your observation that my comments are all "untrue" is your opinion. Please don't ever mistake it for anything more than that. Erath 22:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Your comments were so untethered from reality that calling them 'untrue' is appropriate. I notice you couldn't be bothered to address their validity directly, although I'll note that your recognition of the 'popularity of its predecessors' shows a certain contradiction. --CalendarWatcher 22:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to completely ignore the content of my messages then this is not a discussion, it is a slagging match, and I'm playing no further part in it. I'm inviting other people to share their opinion. Erath 23:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know, if they included the release of The Return of the King on the 2003-page in the beginning of 2003? If so, putting in Harry Potter may be justified.
I'm fairly sure that they included the release of Star Wars Episode III. That's something different than Harry Potter, though (in my opinion), as tbe Star Wars franchise has been a major part of pop culture for 30 years.
It's a question of importance, whether or not to include Harry Potter in the year-overview. In my opinion, it's not important enough to be included in that overview. I'd take out the upcoming release of Spider-Man 3, as well. By the way, does anyone know why Spider-Man 3 and The Simpsons Movie aren't sorted in by date like Harry Potter e.g.? Aren't the release dates confirmed yet?
Out of these movie release dates (HP, Spidey and Simpsons) I'd only include The Simpsons Movie in the 2007-overview. --Gazongagizmo 12:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Wait a second... You'd include Spiderman 3 over Harry Potter 7? Harry Potter has been the best-selling and most influential book series of the decade, crowding out the top three spots in the best-sellers list time after time, and we're not going to include the release date of its last book?? It is definitely of international significance and absolutely worthy of inclusion. Especially when the release date is announced. Grandmasterka 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on Harry

It is certainly noteworthy that the final Harry Potter book and the fifth Harry Potter film are being released within a week and a day of each other. Anybody who does not think so must be hiding in a cave. The book and film take place, fictionally speaking, in the 1990's. It is not logical to put the book in "2007 in fiction" or the movie in "2007 in film." Erudil 15:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange Headlines

There are some... interesting new headlines popping up in this article for 2007 recently. Does it qualify as vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.216.92.246 (talk)

[edit] happy new year

happy new year

Happy New Year All =D Whooooo 2007 (= Ben Hamid =) 00:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (not sure if this is allowed but I didnt start it! lol)

Happy new year ! Hiyahiyahiya 00:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


happy new year all--74.38.99.188 06:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

sob* I'm still in 2006. :( MastertagUSA 22:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC) happy new year!!! Licensedlunacy 08:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing the article's subject. Please take such discussion to the appropriate social areas, e.g. the village pump, user's talk pages, or other community places like Esperanza.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 10:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] current year

Wikipedia uses UTC, so it is already 2007. --Kalmia 03:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

why UTC? Are you sure UTC is NPOV? why not US Eastern Standard/Daylight time? (after all, wikipedia's servers ARE in Tampa, Florida, right?) 68.36.214.143 05:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still 2006 in certain places, so it's a "future event" and "current event" at the same time!

Occurances noted in 'current events' (at the beginning of 2007), did occur at 'that place' when 'that place' already entered 2007. So UTC is NPOV. GoodDay 23:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Has anything happened so far this year?

Just wondering. :) (happy new year) 68.36.214.143 05:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Romania and Bulgaria joining the EU, with Slovenia adopting the euro anyway read the article, also it has only just started. AxG (talk) (sign here) 05:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still in 2006 a I highly dought barely anything has happened in the one hour and twenty-two minutes the eastern standard time has even expirinced 2007. MastertagUSA 22:22 December 31, 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Policy for inclusion of events

What is the policy for inclusion of events listed on this page?

Are we going to list every presidential election? Are we listing every major sport event? Are we listing every international project? Are we listing everything that the IOC do? Are we listing everything the US think is relevant?

These and other important questions can be answered by reading through 2006 and Talk:2006, where many things like this have been debated ad nauseum. And we're not that US-centric. :-) Grandmasterka 07:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 7 - New 7 Wonders

It says that the new 7 wonders will be announced in Switzerland, but shouldn't it be Portugal? Lisbon is Portugal's capital. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.129.228.172 (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC).


[edit] 2006th year?

The intro sentence was changed to say that 2007 is the 2006th year of the Gregorian calendar. Is this correct? I would have thought that 2007th was correct.--GregRM 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just changed that to the 2,006th year of the anno Domini era, because "Gregorian calendar" is not correct, as the Julian calendar was used before the GC being instated circa the 1500s. But the 2,006th year of the AD calendar is correct, since there was no year zero—RunningAway 21:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
But, for instance, for year 1, it is not the "zeroth" year, but the first year. I am still confused.--GregRM 21:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, thanks for correcting the issue of A.D. vs. Gregorian calendar.--GregRM 21:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. But as for the 2,007th year issue, yes, you are right. I guess all that NY's Eve partying got to my brain ;) haha. I'll fix that now. — RunningAway 21:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Common Year?

It states in the article page that 2007 is a common year it also said this about 2006 and 2005 in fact it's said the same about all the years if I renember rightly. In what way is Monday a common year for a year to start??

BCFC Blue 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Any year that is not a leap year is a common year. 2004 and 2000 are leap years.. — RunningAway 23:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On the page '2006,' someone vandalized in the third line of the article. :( Billybobjoebobjoe 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC) BBJBJ

[edit] The Heat

I'm Sure That Every Major News Company Has mentioned That 2007 Promises To Be The Hottest Year In Recorded History. I Think That That Is A Relevent Fact That Should Be Posted. I Am Unsure How To Properly Edit A Wiki But I am Hoping Someone Will Add This To The Artical. Aeonz... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.51.87.57 (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Um, no. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It might happen, but it hasn't yet, and it's not certain that it will. Susan Davis 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
2007: The year with two winters! With sudden snowfall in many parts of the world in February.--59.93.212.162 17:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] year of the pig

Why are we discussing the year of the pig here? China now uses the Gregorian calendar. The old Twelve Animals calendar now has no functional usage, and is confined to astrology. There is no reason to mention it in this article on the Gregorian year. — coelacan talk — 19:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So if nobody has any objections I'm going to take this out soon. — coelacan talk — 04:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The Chinese government uses the Gregorian calendar, but interest in the Chinese zodiacal year is widespread, and other year pages have cited it. It's a small thing, and its inclusion isn't harming anything; please leave it in. Susan Davis 22:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It's a good thing to have in, it helps define the year. Like 2007 being an International Polar Year; it's not a thing that people are going to change their behaviour over, but it adds some sort of character. Kripto 23:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at what page this is. 2007, in the Gregorian calendar. The Chinese calendar is completely unrelated to this. There is no reason to mention it here. If we keep this, then by the same reasoning we need to also include on this page the dates in the Bahá'í calendar, Bengali calendar, Buddhist calendar, Ethiopian calendar, Hebrew calendar, Iranian calendar, Islamic calendar, Japanese calendar, Javanese calendar, Kurdish calendar, Malayalam calendar, Nepali calendar, Thai calendar(s), Tibetan calendar, and Zoroastrian calendar, all of which are in use today, and probably many more that I'm overlooking. There's no reason to be preferencing the Chinese calendar over these other calendars if we're going to include anything non-Gregorian here. But why include any? The Chinese Year of the Pig has absolutely nothing to do with the Gregorian year 2007! The current Year of the Pig corresponds to 18 February 2007 through 6 February 2008. There is no relationship. The Gregorian year 2007 is an International Polar Year. That's related, because that's the year that was designated such. The Year of the Pig wasn't designated International Polar Year. Let's keep this page about the Gregorian calendar, since it's about a Gregorian year. Otherwise, we're unfairly discriminating against all the people who use those other calendars. — coelacan talk — 04:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It could be written that the Year of the Dog ends and the Year of the Pig starts on the Chinese calender. It is something notable that happens during this year. It's rather futile trying to include everyone in everything, e.g. Ethnologue lists over 7000 main languages, is it bias for companies to only translate movies into ten languages? How many should they translate it into? 7000? There's still several thousand more languages which are slightly different, they need to be included too, it would take them years, but at least they're including everyone.
I just think some people do find it significant what Chinese year it is and they do celebrate it, despite what calender they use. I've grown up in a Westernized country, so I might be bias toward this but I've never heard of anyone ever celebrating the Bahá'í New Year, only Gregorian and Chinese, although some of those calendars line up with the Gregorian one, so that may be why.
It doesn't really matter *that* much though, I'm just saying that it could be significant. I think someone visiting the page will not say "Ahh! This is irrelevant to me because I don't use that" Bobmasedo 12:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not irrelevant; it belongs in the article. I just don't think it belongs in the intro, since per WP:LEAD the intro is supposed to be about the content of the article. This is an article about a Gregorian year. The Chinese year is simply not congruent to that. I note that under the February section, there is a note that says:
I think that's appropriate. Since the information is already there, there's nothing to be lost by taking it out of the intro. Now, since you live in a Western nation, you've surely heard of people celebrating Rosh Hashanah. If we're going to include the Chinese New Year, we might as well go on about how most of Gregorian year 2007 is in Jewish year 5767, but sometime in September it will switch over to 5768. But this is not "Western Wikipedia". We try to eliminate our systemic bias here. So we ought to include Islamic New Year, and mention that part of January is in the year 1427 but the rest of the year is in the year 1428. Now give a good reason not to do the Hindu year as well. Lots of people celebrate it. If the Chinese New Year is in the intro, all these should be in the intro, at the very least. — coelacan — 04:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section headings – 'Deaths'

There seems to be a problem with the 'Deaths' section heading not appearing (at least on my display) – anyone know why or can fix it? -- MightyWarrior 23:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You sad little &/\$!/\\* that you want to know who died in the 2007 £*^) you your sad. BCFC Blue 12:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Federal Election

An item was listed speculating about the possibility of a federal election in Canada. While it's a strong possibility, it's far from certain, and will depend to a large extent on what the NDP does. Their poll numbers are currently down, which gives them an incentive to not bring down the government, although they're ideologically sufficiently far from the Conservatives that it's still a possibility. But it's not certain enough to list as a fact; see WP:NOT#CBALL. Susan Davis 21:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AD (or CE) era

CE stands for "Christian" or "Common Era," so the "era" after all this is redundant. Common Era era. I'm not sure how to right it, but for the sake of grammatic accuracy someone should reword.

Reworded. -- Sarcha 45 00:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solar storm

There's a solar storm comin'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.155.95 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Mattism?

WTF? What is Mattism? Sounds like blatant vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.45.81.132 (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 2007 Events By Place...

I notice the regionalized articles in the right panel. Example: 2007 in Argentina, in United Kingdom, etc. Is there a page for US 2007 news only? I've looked all over and could not find an entry.

[edit] PS3

I don't see any other console mentioned, why mention the PS3 release? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.236.224.40 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

There are no other consoles scheduled for release in 2007(That I know of) Bobmasedo 11:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 8 - Israeli Prime Minister accepts that they had planned the attack on Lebanon months before Hizbullah captured Israeli Soldiers.

March 8 - Israeli Prime Minister accepts that they had planned the attack on Lebanon months before Hizbullah captured Israeli Soldiers. Is there any reference for this? 80.42.66.146 13:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the usage of the word "accepts". Perhaps what was meant was "admits"? "Accepts" makes me think someone else told him, and he decides not to argue. I'm not changing it because I don't have any references for this. --Insane 19:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think 'accepts' is usually used by as 'admits' sounds worse... Anyway, here's the reference for the entry - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6431637.stm Easy skankin' 21:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of Bob Barker's retirement

Now, if you don't put this, (a TV legend retiring after 20+ years) then I don't know what. 72.38.234.177 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

Maybe I've missed something in Talk pages for other years, but shouldn't every fact in this article have a reference? Mind-bogglingly difficult task to do it now, I accept, but shouldn't it be a policy to require new additions to have references if they're to be kept.

Some facts have links to articles that reference the fact, yes, but not all and those articles may change with time anyway such that suitable references are lost entirely. GDallimore (Talk) 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/0/0/Talk%7E2007.html"