Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/October 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1: Why is [Insert event here], an event that is "more important and significant" than all the others that are currently listed, not posted?
A1: Relative article quality along with the mix of topics already listed are often deciding factors in what gets posted. Any given day of the year can have a great many important or significant historical events. The problem is that there is generally only room on the Main Page to list about 5 events at a time, so not everything can be posted.
As stated on Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page, the items and events posted on the Main Page are chosen based more on how well they are written, not based on how much important or significant their subjects are. It is easier for admins to select a well-written, cited, verifiable article over a poor one versus trying to determine objectively how much a subject is important or significant.
Keep in mind that the quality requirements only apply to the selected bolded article, not the other links. Thus, an event may qualify for multiple dates in a year if there is an article written in a summary style and an article providing detailed content; if one of those pages have cleanup issues, the other page can be bolded as an alternate.
Another criterion is to maintain some variety of topics, and not exhibit, just for example, tech-centrism, or the belief that the world stops at the edge of the English-speaking world. Many days have a large pool of potential articles, so they will rotate in and out every year to give each one some Main Page exposure. In addition, an event is not posted if it is also the subject of this year's scheduled featured article or featured picture.
Q2: There are way too many 20th-century events listed. Why aren't there more events from the 19th century and before?
A2: The short, basic reason is the systemic bias of Wikipedia. There are not enough good, well-written articles on 19th-century and earlier events for all 365 days in the year. Currently, a majority of users seem to be generally more interested in writing articles about recent events. If you would like to further help mitigate the systemic bias in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
Q3: This page seems to be biased toward events based in [Insert country or region here]. What can be done about it?
A3: This again is attributed to the systemic bias of Wikipedia. Many users are generally more interested in working on good, well-written articles pertaining to their home country. Since this is the English Wikipedia, there will be more English-speaking users, and thus more articles pertaining to English-speaking countries. And if there are more users who are from the United States, there will probably be more well-written articles about events based in the United States. Again, if you would like to further help mitigate the systemic bias in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
Q4: Why is the birthday of [Insert name here] not listed?
A4: Births and deaths can only be used on centennials, etc. Exceptions can be made if they are directly related to assassinations, executions, natural disasters, civil accidents, genocide/extinction, or other historically significant topics that frequently appear on the Selected Anniversaries pages.
Q5: Are the holidays/observances listed in any particular order?
A5: Yes, there is a specified order: International observances first, then alphabetically by where observed. But this is a recent change (1 June 2011), so not every page has been updated to reflect this.
Q6: Some of the holidays/observances that are listed have dates in parentheses beside them. What do they mean?
A6: There are two reasons that some holidays/observances have dates next to them:
  • Non-Gregorian-based holidays/observances are marked with the current year as a reminder to others that their dates do in fact vary from year to year.
  • National Days, Independence Days, and other holidays celebrating the nationhood of a country are generally marked by the year of the significant historic date being observed.
Today's featured article for October 7, 2015 Today's featured picture for October 7, 2015
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 7, 2015

viewtalkedit

None selected. See Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines for help.

create

Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/October 6 * Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/October 8


Should I mention that I dispute the inclusion of a State Recall Election being on here? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it that much either. Any replacements ? -- PFHLai 03:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
1951 - David Ben-Gurion forms first Israeli government.
1959 - Far side of the Moon seen for first time, compliments of U.S.S.R.'s Luna 3.
1985 - The "Achille Lauro" is hijacked by Palestinian terrorists.
2001 - The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan starts with an air assault and covert operations on the ground.
Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 04:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, Sherurcij. For 2007, I've just posted the 1959 item about Luna 3 and the far side of the Moon. The 2001 war in Afghanistan seems somewhat current, and, if choices are available, I'd suggest not having so many military-related items. (In retrospect, i should have used it for the 5th Anniversary. Too late now.) Achille Lauro is already there. And, I'd pass on the 1951 item because the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel is already featured on May 14th. Thanks, again, for the suggestions. -- PFHLai 15:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is Erin born in 1991, and why does she(he?) merit inclusion on a list like this?

Hebrew Calendar-Epoch?[edit]

The Hebrew Calendar begins on Rosh Hashana (as indicated in the epoch article) and thus the anniversary of the epoch on the Gregorian Calendar changes every year. This year's anniversary was 3.5 weeks ago, on Thursday, September 13. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.174.245 (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion, I guess for next year: Oct. 7, patent granted for "the barcode". See [1]. I think it meets any global significance criteria.Rhodesisland (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire defeat[edit]

This discussion was moved from WP:ERRORS; nothing was settled before it went off the Main Page. Maybe continue discussion so next year it's better? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Ottoman Empire was decisively defeated by the Christian West for the first time" - Not true. The Ottomans suffered many defeats against the Hungarians under John Huyandi, and in particular the Siege of Belgrade in the late 15th century was surely a "decisive defeat" for the Ottomans. Gabr-el 05:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please propose the new wording. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, Spain, Venice etc. are further west than the Hungarians. Art LaPella (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Alternative wording? With all due respect, its simple enough for you to see: The Ottoman Empire was decisively defeated by the Christian West. Perhaps on second thought this is better:

The Ottoman Empire was decisively defeated by the Holy League. Gabr-el 18:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

According to today's main page (October 7), the Ottoman Empire was decisively defeated at Lepanto 438 years ago, but actually that's wrong: it's now strongly believed, thanks to the studies of many historians, especially Fernand Braudel, that this battle was absolutely irrelevant; as a proof of this, in 1572 the Turkish navy defeated Venice ships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.171.126 (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(end text from WP:ERRORS)

"Most important since Actium"[edit]

The description of the battle of Lepanto was changed from the very factual statement about it being the last major galley battle in history (something which is entire uncontroversial and highly significant) to a text about a comparison with the entirely unrelated battle of Actium, a statement which not merely fraught with complications and over-simplifications (and is also unreferenced).

Could we please change it back to themore concrete and uncomplicated suggestion I made on 19 September?

Peter Isotalo 06:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid two consecutive blurbs using the phrase "decisively defeated". I also think the fact of it being the last battle between galleys isn't catchy enough. Replaced with another nugget from the intro ("protected the Italian peninsula from an Ottoman invasion"). howcheng {chat} 07:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
This was at best the immediate strategic result of Lepanto, a mere geographic detail with little or no meaning to most readers (and quite speculative). I disagree quite strongly that the reference to the galley isn't "catchy" enough. We're talking about the end of an era for a type of warship that had been around since the very invention of naval warfare in the Mediterranean. In this context, Lepanto is likely the most significant single event ever since it marked the end of the galley era, and did so with a bang. In terms of number of participants, it was one of the largest battles ever fought until that time, even if we include land battles. From a wider historical perspective, it's second in importance only in that it was the first decisive defeat of the Ottoman Empire by the Western European powers.
Either way, the "Italy was saved"-statement is very speculative and too focused on short-term strategy to be appropriate. It's a mere geographic detail in this context.
Peter Isotalo 07:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The galley bit is interesting if you know ships, otherwise it's meaningless. Changed again to "the first major Ottoman loss to European powers". howcheng {chat} 15:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

2012 notes[edit]

howcheng {chat} 20:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

2013 notes[edit]

howcheng {chat} 07:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

2014 notes[edit]

howcheng {chat} 08:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)