Talk:April 19

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 box: view • talk • edit

Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page

Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box.

April 19: Feast day of Saint Alphege of Canterbury (Catholicism, Anglicanism), Education and Sharing Day in the United States (2024), Primrose Day in London

Mae West

1773 – The Polish Partition Sejm met to discuss the First Partition of Poland, carried out the previous year by Russia, Prussia and Austria.
1809 – War of the Fifth Coalition: French general Louis-Nicolas Davout defeated an Austrian force in Lower Bavaria, allowing him to rejoin the main French army.
1927 – American actress Mae West (pictured) was sentenced to ten days in jail for "corrupting the morals of youth" with her play Sex.
1989 – A gun turret exploded on board the United States Navy battleship Iowa, killing 47 sailors.

Uesugi Kenshin (d. 1578)
Elizabeth Dilling (b. 1894)
Denis O'Brien (b. 1958)

More anniversaries:

Genya Ravan

Listed here, but pending an article. Rklawton 01:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore, but that's what redlinks are for -- hinting that an article is needed. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zola Levitt

May I ask why Zola Levitt's death on April 19th 2006 was taken off? Colonel Marksman 23:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because some Nimrod didn't link his name to his article, and some other Nimrod didn't check before removing it. Rklawton 23:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm not a nimrod. 2. I saw the rules and checked. Zola Levitt fits all criteria. Colonel Marksman 00:07, 27 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? Rklawton 01:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bay of Pigs

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 really has to do with the machinations of the link. Bay of Pigs invasion is an event with an article, Bay of Pigs defense isn't, while Bay of Pigs defense has no link to an article other than the location which in turn has a link to Bay of Pigs invasion. Gdo01 03:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Badorties 03:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Horse Badorties[reply]

Dickie Goodman born twice

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 Sublette[reply]

Benalmádena coach crash

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 | Talk 19:26, 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 | Talk 19:44, 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 | Talk 19:56, 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 | Talk 04:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mufka about this. I fail to see how it has global notability. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This event is not of world notablility, hence it should not be on a day article. 2008 in Spain should be created, and it should be included on that article. 188.28.113.151 (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moore's law

I'm wondering whether it would be possible to add a technology "anniversary" to the list. April 19, 1965 is the date of publication of Moore's law, as described by Gordon E. Moore in Electronics magazine. This year was the 50th anniversary of Moore's Law. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Primrose Day"

The only mention of any "celebration" is from 1906. I suggest it be removed from here.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! I know I could have done it myself, but sometimes people get upset at a unilateral action of that kind.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Bicycle day"

From the link, this doesn't seem to be appropriate for this listing. Suggest it be removed.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2018 (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]

Putting it back in - pretty well cited at the linked article section. Abeg92contribs 21:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

but not established as an official or governmental or generally celebrated holiday or observation. It should not be here. --2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:AD20:B600:FF9E:4E34 (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed - unreferenced and therefore not eligible for inclusion. Deb (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant Reformation

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.

--Vicedomino (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Patriots' Day, done without comment on Revision as of 16:21, 21 April 2016

I'd be bold and would add it back myself, except article is semi-protected for some reason.

173.153.196.252 (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

under "Holidays and observances" please add:

Patriots' Day (Massachusetts, Maine and Wisconsin, United States)

173.153.196.252 (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entire subsection was removed, probably totally like accident like the last undocumented edit. I've restored it manually. 2600:1000:BE02:3ADA:94C6:93F2:2095:377C (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at D. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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.

2600:1000:BE06:35EC:94C6:93F2:2095:377C (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y". casualdejekyll 14:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean, User:Casualdejekyll, when an experienced Wikipedia volunteer can't seem to locate the three times my good-faith edits were reverted, instantly, by sockpuppet, breaking the 3-revert rule and (twice) done without any explanation at all? 2600:1000:BE04:2BD6:2031:966F:2810:A16D (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]