Talk:December 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Days of the year
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Days of the Year, a WikiProject dedicated to improving and maintaining the style guide for date pages.
This box: viewtalkedit
Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page
Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box.

December 17: National Day in Bhutan (1907)

Siege of Godesberg
Siege of Godesberg

Prince Rupert of the Rhine (b. 1619) · Simón Bolívar (d. 1830)  · William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin (d. 1907) · Agnes Mary Mansour (d. 2004)

More anniversaries:


Allen (deaths 17 december), isn't he died 2 november 1991???? see link * 1987 - Irving Allen, producer. Or is it a wrong link?? 11:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Possible confusions. See Internet movie database :
1. Irwin Allen (I) (Producer, The Towering Inferno (1974))
2. Irwin Allen (II) (Writer, Panic Year (2002))"
and Broadway database : Irving Lee, also known as: Irving Allen Lee ... but I do not know them! -- Harvestman 22:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


"2006 - The Metalocalypse begins" - isn't this advertising? Luke Parks 00:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


"1973 - 32 are killed in an attempt at the Rome Fiumicino Airport."

Attempt to do what??? GreatWhiteNortherner (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Redsky85 edits[edit]

Redsky85, why do you keep changing my contribution for the death of Frank Pastore? It is a verified fact that Frank Pastore was a radio personality. He had a talk show on KKLA radio ( If you edit this out again I will report you as a vandal.

User98432 (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Project for Awesome[edit]

An anonymous editor is continually adding the event Project for Awesome without any explanation as to why it is notable. Rather than edit war over the item, a discussion here is appropriate. I do not feel that this event meets the long-term global notability requirements per WP:DOY. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The event is notable because it conforms to the following section of the Wikipedia:Days of the year code. Specifically, section 1.1.2 "Founding or first occurrence of global events, such as the Olympic Games"

The Project For Awesome was a worldwide event that altered You Tube permanently. It was organised in such a way that it essentially manipulated the "most commented", "most watched/viewed" and "most rated" you tube videos to make them all about charity. The first incident of this occurred on December 17, 2007, and it has been an annual event that has continued since then. I would argue that given the size of the event and its global nature, as well as some of the events that occurred as a result of it, it is more than worthy of inclusion on the Days of the year link. MST1987 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that it is known outside the YouTube community. It also is a very minor event when you consider how much money it has raised. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it's not well known outside the YouTube community shouldn't in itself disqualify it. The YT community is huge (millions strong) and while the amount of money raised in the first P4A was relatively small, the subsequent ones have been rather impressive, to say the least (notably 2012, with several hundred thousand dollars being raised). Also, you have mentioned the sinking of a ship which was a relatively small news story. While some people died, I would argue that the money raised by the P4A has saved several lives. Furthermore, later P4As resulted in huge amounts of money going to Kiva.Org, an international microfinance company. Given the international impact there, I would hope that we can include significant incidents of great charity, as well as incidents of great sadness and tragedy (such as a ship sinking).MST1987 (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"The fact that it's not well known outside the YouTube community shouldn't in itself disqualify it." Unfortunately, yes it should. Your statement sums it up. It isn't globally notable outside it's own community. That's the qualifier. And as for the funds raised, a local Girl Scout troop could raise as much as this event (only a slight exaggeration). For comparison, the 12-12-12: The Concert for Sandy Relief raised $50 million. That's one event, one time, for one regional disaster. If this annual event, in ten years, has grown to a wide international success, maybe the event can be listed here. It isn't even an established charitable organization. And you are correct, the ship sinking should be removed. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. There are events listed that are not known widely outside of the communities they directly affected. For example, the 1983 car bombing, the 1981 abduction of the Italian general, the 1961 Brazilian circus tragedy, and the 1837 fire at the Winter Palace. All of these only affected the intimidate community around them (the Irish, Italian, Russian and Brazilian communities - and even in these examples, not all of the communities IE the circus tragedy and the winter palace tragedy). Also, the comic relief incident was a single event. It's not comparable, because the qualification I referenced was "Founding or first occurrence of global events, such as the Olympic Games". The P4A is global, its first event was in 2007 on December 17th, and it is an annual event. A girl scouts cookie drive could not raise $483,000 (as the P4A did in 2012) unless it was national. If it is national, and annual, I would be more than happy to see a girls scouts cookie drive as an event on this list. I would argue that the P4A is also significant in its uniqueness. It took social media and used it for charity in a way that had not been seen on a large scale before. It used tactics that were normally applied by trolls etc and used them for good. This is worthy of a mentionMST1987 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't use other entries to support inclusion of another. We miss many that should be removed. New additions are usually the ones that get noticed. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's a standard debating tactic. You prove a point about a case based on precedent. Are you going to suggest that all of the examples I suggested should in fact be removed? I was under the impression that you went through this same level of discussion for each one. Furthermore, you haven't explained yet how what I have suggested fails to meet the criteria, despite my specific citing of the WP:DOY in section 1.1.2. which states that a day may be included if it is the "Founding or first occurrence of global events, such as the Olympic Games". The P4A is a global event, and December 17th 2007 was its first occurrence. You've also conveniently ignored my points about the amount of money it raised, and the uniqueness of the event. Both of which are things that make it worthy to be included here. So to sum up in bullet point form,

  • The P4A fits the criteria stated in section 1.1.2 of the WP:DOY. It is the inaugural launching of a regular, global event that is part of a movement.
  • The P4A, while starting small, has become far larger than many more mainstream charity events.
  • The YouTube community which takes part in this event is in the millions in terms of number.
  • The YouTube community is transcending of national boundaries.
  • The P4A is significent, in that it is one of the very first instances of the use of social media for charitable purposes that was not linked to a wider mainstream media event.
  • Other events that are included are of lesser significance than the P4A.

If you do not wish to include it, please refute the relevance of these points. MST1987 (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I might suggest that all of the events you mention should be removed, but I haven't reviewed them. I don't have the time or inclination to do so. Those events must be ignored when debating this one because stuff gets missed. It would be imprudent to expand the discussion to include all possible events. I did review the event you added and I don't feel that it meets the criteria. It may indeed be global in scope, but it is not global in notability. $400,000 is peanuts in contemporary fundraising terms. Especially for something that you claim is so wide in scope. I'd expect YouTube to have much more reach and I would chaulk this up as almost a PR failure for YouTube. I haven't seen any evidence that the participation was in the millions as you suggest but that alone wouldn't change my opinion. This evidently can't be decided by you and me. We'll need to wait for additional input to form consensus. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you would consider this a "PR failure for youtube" shows me that you really don't understand the nature of this event, and why it is so impressive. You don't seem to appreciate that it is NOT organised by youtube. It is organised ON youtube. Youtube is used as a means to do this, but none of the people who are organising and running this event are employees of Youtube. They are all volunteers, all people who create content for youtube in their spare time. There is ZERO overhead. There is no external organisational structure or permanent employees. This is a purely grassroots organisation which has global scope. While YouTube the company has helped on occasions, this is something where they are the means, not the creators. Furthermore, if you actually read the source, it was $483,000 as estimated, but the final total is not yet known. And that money can do a great deal when there are no overheads, which brings me to the global nature of this event. You have yet to explain what constitutes a "globally" significant event. I would argue that since this event has raised money for micro-financiers all across the planet, that constitutes a global event, with global impact. Because of its nature as a positive event, it is much harder for it to become newsworthy, but I would definitely suggest that it is global in impact as well as scope (its just that the impact happens to lots of people on the bottom of the global ladder, so its not something that news stories make a big thing of). Please provide a definition of what constitutes a "globally noteworthy" event. I would argue that because of the cumulative nature of microfinance, this is very much a globally noteworthy event. Also, your argument "These other events are staying, but yours isn't" is kind of unfair. So if I'd put in my event earlier, and it had been there longer, you'd accept it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MST1987 (talkcontribs) 19:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The existence of other events is not relevant. I have not put an ounce of thought in to any other events for the purpose of this discussion. They don't matter. I'm not making a judgement right now whether they belong or not. The article on this event is very short and doesn't provide enough detail about the claims that you make. There is no mention of where the money has gone and who has been helped. No mention of participation. No mention of who is talking about it. Build a better article that supports the notability you claim and then we can talk. Global notability is somewhat subjective, but to make a claim at least a marginal effort to support it must be made. Your support for notability can't be contained here on this page, it must be in the topic article, supported by various reliable sources. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Frank Pastore[edit]

Frank was more than just a "host". The Frank Pastore show became among the largest Christian talk shows in the United States. He had a talk show on KKLA radio ( This gave him prominence and notoriety. User98432 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean? the show is called "The Frank Pastore show" that makes him the host it's not wrong so stop edit waring Dman41689 (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes he was the host, but he was notorious, highly recognizable because of his popularity. News of his death was covered in the media internationally. I am willing to compromise and include host and radio personality. User98432 (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I apologize for the warning, but you changed my post without explanation.User98432 (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead in his bio article says "radio personality and Major League baseball player". In the context of the date pages, the description should reflect whatever it says in the bio article. The description should be "American radio personality and baseball player." If you wish to change it, get consensus for change in the bio article. End of conflict. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)