This article is part of WikiProject Days of the Year, a
WikiProject dedicated to improving and maintaining the style guide for date pages.Days of the yearWikipedia:WikiProject Days of the yearTemplate:WikiProject Days of the yearDays of the year articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
Probably because some Nimrod didn't link his name to his article, and some other Nimrod didn't check before removing it.
Rklawton23:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Nimrod was a might hunter, but that's besides the point. You removed a guy who died on this date and who has an article here in Wikipedia, and you left no edit summary. What removal criteria did he meet?
Rklawton01:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Whoever keeps re-writing the April 19 entry for "Bay of Pigs" has an indefensible position: that of the invasion being a failure. The fact is that the "defense" against the invasion was a success. The Bay of Pigs entry should reflect the success of the repelling of the attack, rather than the attack being a "failure". —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Horse Badorties (
talk •
contribs)
02:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC).reply
I received this message:
Please stop changing the Bay of Pigs entry. Its obvious that whenever an invasion fails, the invaders are the ones who lost. Insinuating that Cubans won an invasion is POV pushing. Gdo01 02:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that describing the "invasion" as such leads us to viewing it only as a success or failure from the POV of the invaders. It's almost as if the efforts of the Cubans to defend themselves is irrelevant.
I think it's better to present the invasion as the illegal act that it was, and present it as a successful repelling of an illegal invasion, which is exactly what it was, sans POV.
It's not necessary that every word or phrase refer to another Wikipedia article. Therefore, the defense against the attack at the Bay of Pigs need not refer to a Bay of Pigs Defense article. I think the thing to keep in mind is that the attack was illegal, and that the defense was a success. The fact that there is no Bay of Pigs Defense article has more to do with the lack of access of Cubans to Wikipedia than anything else.
Horse Badorties03:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Horse Badortiesreply
Novelty songwriter Dickie Goodman appears to have been born twice - once in 1932, and again in 1934!
Mark Sublette (
talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC). Incidentally, the reason I was checking this page is because I, too, was born this date.
Mark Sublette (
talk)
10:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Mark Sublettereply
This event does not rise to the level of global notability. I can see no reason that this event would have any impact outside of Spain and why anyone outside of Spain would be interested in this event from a historical perspective. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I still think the
Málaga coach crash is notable. It is the worst traffic accident in Spain in seven years. The reason stated is "car crash in Spain is not really notable". Does a car crash killing nine people and injuring 38 have to happen in the USA to be "globally notable"? I just got back home from the local pub, and there I read the latest issue of
Iltalehti, which had devoted over ten pages solely to this event! And you claim Wikipedia should just ignore it?
JIP |
Talk19:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I just glanced through the category
Category:Road accidents in the United States. There were three accidents with fewer deaths than this one: one with
seven, one with
four and one apparently with
only one (at least I did not see a mention of anyone else getting killed). So why is an accident killing nine people and injuring 38 so non-notable? You have claimed it is not notable outside Spain. As I have just demonstrated, it is one of the most important current news in Finland, which is outside Spain. I have not had access to the Spanish press, but I can think they have covered it extensively as well.
JIP |
Talk19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
(Edit Conflict) - The worst crash in seven years is not the worst ever. The worst ever might belong here. "Does a car crash killing nine people and injuring 38 have to happen in the USA to be "globally notable"?" Absolutely not. It might be newsworthy, but not globally notable. Please have a look at
WP:DOY. I am not familiar with Iltalehti, but the first line of the article on it says that it is a tabloid newspaper and they are usually looking for stories to fill their pages. If the event involved some prominent figure or was especially scandalous or changed the way buses operate, then it might be notable. Perhaps if the article on the subject was supported by some sources outside of Europe (and in English - considering this is the English WIkipedia), it might help. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Are any of the three accidents with fewer deaths mentioned on date articles. Probably not. Newsworthy does not mean globally notable. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
It's only been two days since the crash. There has been not enough time for Spain to react by changing their laws. Iltalehti is not as reputable as Helsinki's main newspaper
Helsingin Sanomat, but is still one of the most read newspapers in Finland. And if you want an article about the crash in Helsingin Sanomat, Helsinki's most respected and Finland's most read newspaper,
here is one. And why does there have to be coverage outside Europe? Was there coverage of the three accidents I mentioned outside the United States? And if you read the article I translated this evening, you can see that the very first reference is in English. It might only be from the UK (the birthplace of the English language), so it might not be good enough.
JIP |
Talk19:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Before we go too far, I think we are mixing apples and oranges. I will concede that the event is notable enough for an article. So we can move beyond that. But it needs to be globally notable for inclusion in this list. If the event is not prominently covered in sources outside of Europe, it can't be globally notable. I'm sure it will be mentioned in outside sources, but will it have an impact outside of Europe? Will it be memorialized outside of Europe? The jury is still out on that. I am worried that you unfairly perceive a bias because I am American. This is unfair and insulting. I invite you to check my track record. I am equally critical of American events. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)20:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
OK, I have to apologise for calling you biased. Other users are still adding non-notability tags to the article, but I have removed them, because I think the incident is notable enough. By the way, I found an English language Wikinews article about this:
wikinews:Bus crash in Spain leaves 9 Finnish tourists dead, written by an American 14-year-old boy only a few hours after the incident happened.
JIP |
Talk04:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Done. I can see a stronger case for keeping this one than Primrose Day, as the article states that Bicycle Day is commemorated by LSD users. Nonetheless, a general/vague claim that the day is recognized didn't feel strong enough to me to warrant inclusion. Anyone who feels otherwise is invited to comment here. —
Compassionate727(
T·
C)10:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)reply
The statement is made; "1529 – Beginning of the Protestant Reformation: "
The Germans just finished celebrating the beginning of the Protestant Reformation in 2017, the 600th anniversary of Martin Luther's 95 theses. It isn't clear in the statement in the article what it was that counts as the beginning of the Reformation. If ever there was a need for citations to justify an item, this is it.
Otherwise, I challenge it as not worthy of inclusion.
Tried to restore a section that appears to be removed inadvertently, but at least without comment
Reverted twice without comment, third time with a vague one.
More experienced editors clearly violated multiple Wikipedia policies, and at this point I'm unsure of the correct course of action. My good-faith edits should not be rejected wholesale, thrice, without any effort to come to a consensus, or even leave a note on the talk page.