Talk:February 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconDays of the year
WikiProject iconThis 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.

February 5: Constitution Day in Mexico (1917)

A device for producing Bakelite
A device for producing Bakelite
More anniversaries:

2008 Super Tuesday is not a significant event[edit]

This is not the first Super Tuesday. The only difference is more states were involved. My understanding is that this page is for "significant" events. Adding comments like this makes this page more less trivia rather than historical items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.35 (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not a significant event. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definately not notable, it shouldn't be listed. Grouf(talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the largest single-day primary event in the history of the United States. Therefore, notable. Kingturtle (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter? The number changes every year. Have we noted all of the previous largest Super Tuesdays? The last largest was March 7, 2000, does anyone remember that? No one will care about this one either. It has no appreciable impact because sooner or later every state has its primary. We don't note election day, why would we note pre-election day? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking "does anyone remember that" is a moot point. The purpose of a day-of-the-year article is NOT to jog the memory for nostalgic sake. The purpose is to catalog notable historic events.

Yes, we do sometimes note election days, and yes, we should note this largest ever primary day. This is the first time in 80 years that there is no incumbent candidate for either major party - the first time in 80 years that the field is wide open for both major parties. Therefore, the super tuesday of 2008 is quite significant.

The numbers don't change every year because it is not a yearly occurrence. Kingturtle (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you capitalized on what amounts to a typo. Clearly I meant the numbers change every time there is a presidential election and they absolutely do. What is impacted by this occurrence? Does it change the election process? I don't think in five years that one will look back on this event and suggest that it was all that remarkable. I also don't see how the 80 years topic relates to this discussion. That part is just trivia. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not trivia or trivial that the U.S. has not seen since the 1920s its two major parties without a incumbent or incumbent-endorsed candidate. This is new political terrain for nearly all Americans. That paired with enormity of Super Tuesday gives significance to the event. It is the closest the U.S. has ever come to a national primary, and that is significant. Kingturtle (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that this event is limited to US Politics, and a rather small part of it. These elections only lead to other elections, which will lead to other elections, etc. I don't see anything notable resulting from this event. I don't consider 'new political terrain' notable. I will agree that it is interesting and is getting a lot of media attention, but I don't see any long-term significance. Grouf(talk • contribs) 19:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has not been anything notable result from this event, and there are 3 arguments to remove, and only one to keep; I am removing this event. Grouf (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well its back. Someone should add that it had no significant impact and 4 weeks later the race goes on. Maybe if Clinton stomps Obama in Pennsylvania we should at that one too.Rlbarton (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

significance?[edit]

I imagine I am loose contructionist when it comes to adding things to day of the year articles while many of you are strict constructionists (as we have seen over the Super Tuesday debate. By my bar, the following events are ok, but according to a strict constructionist sense, the following events are not internationally significant. Can anyone defend the international significance of:

Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my judgment, all of the above should be excluded. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see no international significance of any of those entries. In fact I remember seeing the red nose entry and thinking that should be removed, but when I was looking I didn't have time to dig further into the event, and since then I had forgotten which date it was on. I would remove all those entries. Grouf (talk • contribs) 19:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're only going to be left with actions of governments. Kingturtle (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
First please don't delete my comments. Second I see no problem with that. The way that I read WP:NGS the date pages should only contain major historical events, and these, as far as I can tell, are not major historical events. Grouf (talk • contribs) 20:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I did not intentionally delete your comments. It was an error. Kingturtle (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Conflict (yes I was sitting on it for a while): I don't think so. The first successful brain transplant will be notable. Invention of the virtual reality sex machine will be notable. Largest earthquake ever is notable. Social firsts aren't necessarily tied to governments, nor are crime and scientific events. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oh...edit conflict....sorry, I'm use to vandals intentionally deleting, 'honest mistake' didn't occur to me. No hard feelings. Grouf (talk • contribs) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to harp on this, but according to my standards, the major tornado outbreak should stay, but according to the prevailing standards I don't see how it is internationally notable or significant. Kingturtle (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The prevailing standard would support exclusion. We can really only go on the prevailing standards which are as close to consensus as we'll get. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles II/ 1649[edit]

I think the line makes the situation unclear. Charles was only recognised as king of Scots, he wasn't crowned until 1/1/1651. At no point during this period was Charles recognised as king of Ireland or England by either of the respective governments. --BRFC78 (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ruth fertham is a businesswoman, not a businessman[edit]

I initially had the impression upon reading this that Ruth must be being used as a boy's name (as it sometimes is). I had to click through to find out that she was in fact a woman. There are hardly any women listed in the Births on this page, so it would be nice to make clear when there is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.38.77 (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aris Christofellis[edit]

Aris Christofellis is a male soprano not a tenor and this is immediately reflected on his wikipedia page. Though it's possible he may have sung and recorded as a tenor (which he's perfectly capable of doing!), it is as a soprano that he is best known and celebrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.61.138.71 (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of insufficiently birth entries[edit]

I've removed a few of some celebrities on birth lists on articles with a little or no articles in other Wikipedias. If they not notable enough. Thank you Shiesmine (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that that was part of our notability criteria. What are the inclusion criteria for these articles? WP:BIRTHDOY says it is "more stringent" than WP:N, but doesn't say what it is. Elizium23 (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on February 5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

100th anniversary in 2019[edit]

Hi. Late notice, but 2019 marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of United Artists by Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, Charlie Chaplin and D. W. Griffith. Any chance we can get it in? Article on UA has some good photos of the four. Moira Paul (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of names under section headers "Births" and "Deaths"[edit]

I am confused as to why my addition of 1961 Hakan Peker, 1962 Jacqui Dankworth, 1975 Adam Carson, 1998 Sara Tomic and 2001 Juan Karlos Labajo under "Births" and 1967 Violeta Parra under "Deaths" was reverted. The WP:Edit summary stated the putative problem as, "please provide WP:RSs per WP:DAYS", but gave no other details. Since none of the names under "Births" and "Deaths" is accompanied by inline cites, it would be inappropriate to append <refNEWSPAPER/MAGAZINE BIRTH NOTICE/OBITUARY/ref> only to these six entries. Thus, a more-detailed explanation of the problem would be helpful. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bouligny speech[edit]

References

  1. ^ Bouligny, John Edward (February 5, 1861). Remarks of Hon. J.E. Bouligny, on the Secession of Louisiana (Speech). House of Representatives. Washington, D.C. Retrieved May 9, 2021. I was not elected by that body, and I have nothing to do with it, or it with me.

Toddst1, regarding the notability of the speech, I'd say it is notable because it is one of the few instances of a Deep South congressman affirming his support for the Union as the country was breaking apart. This speech was when he outlined his intentions and it was widely reported in the national press at the time, and, until his death in 1864, this speech (and the stand he took) were frequently mentioned when Bouligny appeared in the press. Even if the speech itself doesn't meet the notability threshold, it would still be a good date/marker for Bouligny's decision to stand with the Union, which seems to me a notable event. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally events are expected to be notable to the point where they have articles about them. It's clear Bouligny is highly notable but his speech wasn't on the order of the Gettysburg Address - which was a notable speech. Toddst1 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Liberation Day" San Marino[edit]

In the linked article, it says "Commemoration of Saint Agatha, co-patroness of the Republic after the country was liberated from foreign rule on her feast day in 1740". Nothing about calling it Liberation Day or celebrating it as such. --2607:FEA8:FF01:4E54:F09A:3CFC:65BE:BC9 (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:February_5&oldid=1088455850"