Talk:February 13

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.

February 13

India Gate, New Delhi
India Gate, New Delhi
More anniversaries:

This can't be right?[edit]

1635 - The first public school in the U.S., Boston Latin Public School, is founded. That's what it says. I will check but I don't think that date is right. cpswarrior 06:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I think i used the wrong function in the wrong spot. I was trying to put the edit by up for review to see if that was vandalism. I will just mark it as Vandalized! --Kingofslackrs 05:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed birth entries for 1990 and 91 labeled "Scottish Boy" and "Ninja," respectively. Obviously vandalism.-- 01:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering how there could be an entry for 2008 already. Unless Wikipedia now predicts the future, I doubt it's accuracy. jfreak213 9 February 2008

Apology to the Stolen Generations[edit]

I've been asked to demonstrate that the apology to the Stolen Generations was not "non-notable". I would have thought it was bloody obvious that the apology is hugely notable. It has been a primary topic of debate in Australia for over ten years. I invite you to look at the articles Stolen Generations, History Wars and Bringing Them Home. I invite you to consult the Australian media online (try the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation), as well as world media (try the New Zealand Herald, the BBC and France 24, for example). This is one of the most notable events in Australian history, and I'm astounded that I'm actually being asked to demonstrate that. Aridd (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that most people around the world are not familiar with the event or the reason for the apology. Generally, it is difficult to consider something globally notable until after the event has occurred and the world has had a chance to react to it. The fact that something has been a topic of debate in Australia indicates that it is an important issue in Australia. It does not help to support the suggestion that this particular event will have an impact on people all over the world. In ten years, will people in Canada mark the date? What about China? I hope that you understand that this is meant to be a dialog to help reach consensus that the event is notable on a global scale and will remain so for decades to come. I am not suggesting that it definitely does not belong, but the reasons for its inclusion need to be established or the entry will be the subject of edit wars in the future. If something is to be included, it is helpful to have a solid argument for its inclusion rather than a suggestion that anyone who doesn't understand its significance simply read the news. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This event is extremely notable for the history of australia, it is one of the most historic and im very sure that in 10 years time people will be celebrating this day, as it is 'Sorry Day', and ive looked at some of the events in this article and i doubt some of those are as notable, maybe in America or wherever your from. Youv'e said the events have to be notable around the world and most of the events here I havent even heard of and im pretty sure a whole country wont be celebrating as the greatest day for national equality between indigenous and non-indigenous australians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that some of the events listed are not notable but the newest ones get attention first and this event has to be evaluated on its own merits, not compared to others. Again, it is clearly asserted that the event "is extremely notable for the history of australia" but why is it notable for the whole world? What impact does the event have on the world? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 06:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, some of the events on their arent notable for the whole world, but their still there, im not saying they shouldn't, because they to are historic events, so is this day. Eventually this event will be on the list, so why not put it on as people will remember it as a notable event. It does not say on this list that it has to be an event of worldwide notability, but it is a list of events. Take for example the fact, what if a school student wanted to do and exam on all of the notable events on this day, he may come to wikipedia, then i would assume that he would want to know about this event. This subject has been an australian issue for decades and this day is the most notable of the evnts involving that issue, it has been talked about in sources all oer the world as mentioned above by arrid. This site is a place for informing people about notable subjects in the world, and this is a notable subject. there are many pages on this site that are not notable around the world yet they get a whole page, all i am trying to do here is to put a small sentence about this historic event in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't stress enough that this discussion is not about "some of the events". This is about this apology event. You call this a historic event in history, but it is barely history. You haven't answered my question of how it impacts the rest of the world and it seems that you can't. It seems that you have a particular interest in the event but can't explain why everyone else should have the same interest. I'm trying to help you to provide support for your event. But doing so requires answering the question of worldwide impact. If your argument is that "Eventually this event will be on the list" then it shouldn't be there today. This list is intended to be a permanent record of the world's most notable events. Events are not to be added and removed as they fall out of favor. That's why it usually takes time after an event occurs to determine its long-term global notability. You mentioned that "It does not say on this list that it has to be an event of worldwide notability". Please have a look at WP:DAYS and WP:NGS for the background on what is meant to be included in the date articles. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 07:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I was perhaps a little irritable last night, and for that I'm sorry. It was almost 3am, and I was tired. I see your point, but I can assure you that this is an extremely notable event, and not just in Australia - although the fact that it is widely acknowledged as one of the biggest events in Australian history should surely be enough in itself to warrant inclusion. Three points. First, this has been an event in the making for almost ten years, ever since the Bringing Them Home report in 1997. During that time, it has been the focus of considerable attention and debate in Australia, which has been echoed by the world media. It has arguably been the big issue of the past decade in Australia. Second, how many events do you know of which are widely reported in the world media before they even happen? There was coverage of the apology in the media in New Zealand, the UK and France (at the very least) before it actually happened, with each coverage insisting on the significant importance of this event for the whole of Australian history. Third, this is part of what is indisputably an issue of international concern, at least within the former settler colonies of the UK (New Zealand, Canada, the US, South Africa): that of reconciliation between settlers and indigenous peoples. This is not some off-hand apology. It is something which has been strenuously and continuously debated for years, and which has required very careful preparation. It is of huge symbolic importance, and has been explicitly intended as a turning point in Australian history. It has received widespread international media coverage, reporting on its significance. It is, in a very real sense, already part of history; it was a major chapter in history before it even officially happened, and was treated as such. It became a major chapter in history before even happening, and that alone should make its inclusion obvious. Not to include it would be... downright bizarre. Especially when the entry for 2007 on this page is the resignation of the chairman of the Kuomintang, an event which I'm sure almost everyone would agree is less relevant, drew less prolonged international attention and has less international impact than the apology to the Stolen Generations. If we look at the page for February 12, the entry for 2007 is a shooting which killed five people in Salt Lake City. A tragedy, yes, but I think it's safe to say with 100% certainty that, a few years from now, the number of people who actively remember the apology to the Stolen Generations will dwarf the number of people who actively remember the Salt Lake City shooting. Likewise for the 2008 entry for February 5: a tornado in the southern US. Tragic? Yes. Noteworthy? Yes. Memorable? No doubt. As noteworthy and memorable as the apology to the Stolen Generations? I think not. The 2008 entry for January 31 is the beaching of the MS Riverdance. Compare that with the apology to the Stolen Generations. I understand your point, but I maintain that the validity of including the apology to the Stolen Generations on this page should be blindingly obvious. Aridd (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
First Mufka is right: historical significance can only be established after the event has occured. We must be able to see the reactions from the event to determine its significance. Just because various media outlets call something historical doesn't mean that it is. Always remember 2 things about media outlets: 1.They usually buy their stories from other media outlets (if media'A' calls something 'historical' and media'B' buys that story, then media'B' is going to call it 'historical' as well.) and 2.Media outlets are in the business of selling their product. This usually means slightly modifying stories to make them appear more important then they really are. Never take what media outlets publish as the whole truth.
Second this would appear to be a significant event in Australian political history. However its true significance will not be know for some time yet. I would suggest removing it for now and re-evaluate it after all the reactions from all the parties involved have been documented and incorporated into the Wikipedia articles.
Third please don't try to establish notability of an event by pointing at other events and campairing them. "That one is there so mine should be too" doesn't establish notability, it just fill up the talk page. Please establish notability by pointing to the properly referenced sections on the article of the subject of your event. Grouf(talk contribs) 14:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to address your points, Grouf. Please don't be offended if I emphasise that this is an issue which I know a lot about and which I've been following for a long time, whereas you, clearly, know nothing about it. I'm not criticising you, but I am asking you to accept that I know what I'm talking about. And that, to anyone who knows anything about this issue, the very suggestion that it may be "non-notable" or "not yet historic", is the height of absurdity. (When I say it's absurd, I'm not just flinging some word out. I do mean it's absurd.) Now, to address your comments.

  1. "Historical significance can only be established after the event has occured." I'm sorry to be blunt, but: You're wrong. You have to see this in context. Right up to the late 1960s, thousands of Aboriginal children were snatched from their parents through state-sanctioned policies. In 1997, the Bringing Them Home report shed light on the extent of what had happened. Ever since then, the issue has been at the forefront of political debates and debates within society in Australia. More than that, it became a central issue in a debate about Australian history itself. For over ten years, Aboriginals and others asked for an apology. The issue of whether or not to apologise was central to the debate about the past, present and future of Australian society, Australia's self-image, Australian identity and Australian inter-ethnic relations. That's why I said the apology became hugely historically significant before it even happened, because it's been hugely significant for ten years while it's been debated. I should add that the National Sorry Day and the Bringing Them Home report are considered to have been historical landmarks, and that the actual apology, deriving from them, is unquestionably (and by definition) a lot more important. If events leading up to an event and preparing it are considered to be significant historic landmarks, what do you think that means about the end event itself? Q.E.D.
  2. "This would appear to be a significant event in Australian political history. However its true significance will not be know for some time yet." I think I've just answered that, and I hope you can see why you were wrong.
  3. "'That one is there so mine should be too'" doesn't establish notability." It's not 'mine'. Your implication is quite frankly insulting. It's a matter of basic fact. This is a tremendously important historical event, which has been recognised as such for the past decade already, not just by the media but by Australian politicians of all political parties and by academics, whatever their point of view on the Stolen Generations.

I'll say it again, just once more: Suggesting that the apology made to the Stolen Generations is somehow not notable or not yet a major historical event is simply to betray extreme ignorance of this event. I'm not criticising you for not knowing about it. But I am saying that, to anyone who knows anything about it, its notability and historical importance are glaringly obvious, and have been for many years. If you are honest with yourself, you'll recognise that you have no basis for saying that it's not notable. If you're not willing to take my word for it, look it up. The articles I mentioned earlier are there for you to read. They all have sources. All I'm asking is that you try to learn more about it, enough to gain an understanding of the issue, before you start advocating the removal of something which it would be truly absurd to remove (I quite honestly cannot emphasise this enough). I'm going on an extended wikibreak now, so I'm going to leave it at that - and trust in the knowledge and common sense of my fellow Wikipedians. If you have any questions, you can drop a line on my talk page, but I may not reply any time soon. Aridd (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Aridd, I would suggest that each time you post on this topic, you are making the case stronger against inclusion. Suggesting that someone should "accept that I know what I'm talking about" is not the way it works here. We can't take your word for it. That would be subjective and unfair. If an event is globally notable it needs to be considered notable by people who know nothing about it. You have not succeeded in establishing why this event is important outside of Australia. Your statement that "this is an issue which I know a lot about and which I've been following for a long time" indicates clear bias on the subject and perhaps an emotional connection to it. We'll remove it for now and hope that some other objective editors can come along and shed some light on the subject. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with inclusion. This event is significantly important and deserves to be included as an event in Wikipedia. Perhaps living outside of Australia, foreigners will not understand but this was not just some 'sorry'. This was The Sorry. I invite you to go back to review several other events recorded for 2007 - things like 'highest stock exchange rate' etc etc are included - I'm not saying they should be removed, because they are significant events, AS IS Kevin Rudd apologizing to the natives of Australia.

DanEdmonds (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


The first "on this day" entry for this date, February 13, takes you to the entry for the Battle of Karnal. There you read that the battle took place on February 24. Which is it? Axworthy's Sword of Persia says February 24, while a couple of earlier secondary works say February 13, but either way Wikipedia should probably settle on one consistent date, no? (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)