Talk:December 21

--mav 00:59, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

it says Stalin was born on the XXI here.. but on his wiki page it says XVIII? what gives? lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.76.166 (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Where's the evidence for the Isle of Man claim? The women's suffrage entry claims that that honor goes to New Jersey, albeit very briefly... --dcsohl

1861 event: " ... Confederate envoys James Mason and John Slidell, arrested by the United States Navy aboard the British mail steamer Trent in order to prevent war between the United States and the United Kingdom." Is this what is meant? That Mason and Slidell were arrested in order to prevent war? Or is it just bad grammar? The sentence is very long; I would edit but do not know the history at all. --alpheus

I notice that an anonymous user working from IP address 172.189.110.188 has been making aggressive edits: removing many events because (s)he could not find that info in related articles. Most of the deleted entries seem plausible, and if there is no clear evidence that the info that someone has bothered to enter is false, I would give it the benefit of the doubt and retain it: maybe the other articles are deficient. Wikipedia is suffering from a consistent method for referring to sources. What do y'all think? Tom Peters 19:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have any particular problem with removing events that aren't mentioned in any linked articles; if they weren't important enough to be listed in the article about the subject, why should they be here? Given Wikipedia's recent trouble with "facts" not backed up by verifiable sources, I'm not sure the benefit of the doubt should run in this direction. This is a more general question, however, that might be worth bringing up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year. Also, see the note on that talk page about "this day in history" websites - I wouldn't be surprised if those are the questionable source of many of the entries here. CDC (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * responding to RfC: i think the user is removing too much information. the stuff he removed should probably be kept, like the mayan calendar thing and the vancouver thing.--BUF4Life 19:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I would be in favor of the questionable material being retained, since most of it seems likely to be true. This stuff needs a reference tag, not deletion KrazyCaley 05:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree.--BUF4Life 03:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Maya
Should the Mayan claim of the world ending in 2012 on Dec 21 be mentioned? Motor.on

Maybe technically the idea that the world will end is wrong, but that does not mean it won't have significance. My2K is fascinating whether it's true or not. People will be looking for info. So why would we not mention it? EdnaNetzke (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it should be mentioned, thats why i came to this page in the first place... Alexbrewer 13:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto Tayandre 06:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That the world ends (actually is re-created) by the Maya on December 21, 2012 is not a Maya belief, but a deduction by former Maya scholars which is now solely advocated by New Age astrologers. Before 1975, it was assumed that the Long Count ceased or recycled when it reached 13.0.0.0.0 on December 21, 2012, beginning a new Long Count with the next baktun (after 400 years) being 1.0.0.0.0. When Maya glyphs could be read (after 1975), a Maya date more than two thousand years in the future was found which was stated by a Maya king to be his anniversary, hence the Maya did not cease their Long Count in 2012. The Long Count is now regarded as continuing endlessly, with the next baktun after 13.0.0.0.0 being 14.0.0.0.0, then the baktuns recycle at 20, not 13. Although the end of the world is recounted in the Popol Vuh, it never gave a specific Long Count date to it. New Age astrologers have linked the former end of the Long Count with the end of the world on this former hypothesis—Maya scholars no longer do that, hence it should not be listed as an anniversary in this article. — Joe Kress 21:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually writing 'humanity' under 'deaths' section may be funny, but it's not intelligent - beside fact, that it isn't in the page source!


 * Just because the beleif may not be logical, does not mean it should not me mentioned. It could be said that there is some belief, logically or otherwise, that the world will cease to exist.Johnnywalterboy (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather than listing the modern interpretation of the calendar ending, simply list the basic fact: "2012 - The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar completes a "great cycle" of 1,872,000 days." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.198.181 (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

i wonder who put this at the very end of the article Italic text 2012 An apocalypse is supposed to occur on this date. The Mayan calender and the Bible point out this day as the Last Judgment day or " The end of the World as we know it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.195.48 (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"2012 - The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar completes a "great cycle" of 1,872,000 days." - I second that, and it's entirely referencable. Should be in. --APDEF (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added that, as well as putting down that some people believe it to mean that the earth will end, with a link to the 2012 phenomenon page. If anyone has a problem with that you can change it. --DraconianDebate (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a future event and does not belong on this page. It's listed in 2012.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any Wikipedia rule I don't know about that says future events are not allowed on day pages? --DraconianDebate (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:DOY. These pages are for historical events.  Future events may not happen or may not have any historical significance after they occur.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe this page should have a section discussing the Mayan beliefs regarding this date for the following reasons: 1: as a page discussing historical events, this page should include mention of this date as a historically predicted important date. 2: This page should include all significant events observed on this date, as long as the events can be supported by other non-fictional works. 3: This date is commonly mentioned in works of both fact and fiction and is a likely topic for user research, which should be aided by providing links and information. 4: this date in 2012 is connected to a Mayan social and religious event and therefore should be included under Holidays and Observances as such.

a proposed concise mention of this date in 2012 (to be placed under "Holidays and Observances"): December 21, 2012 corresponds to the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar's (commonly referred to as the Mayan Calendar) conclusion of the thirteenth b'ak'tun or age. Various beliefs exist on the significance of this date, referred to as the 2012 Phenomenon.

Please provide edits to this proposed entry separately to preserve my original proposition. Thank you. PENJrAV8R (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We can begin having a conversation about including mention of this on December 22, 2012. At that point it will be history.  Until then it doesn't belong here in any form.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Deaths on this date
It says that The World is going to die on 2012. I dont think this is appropriate to have here has it is not proven that this is going to happen. I'm removing it because of a false fact. --Striker1057 (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. It was probably just vandalism. – L A  X  18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed this from the Deaths section. --Master of the Aztecs (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There was another case of that with the birth this time, took care of it. Armachedes (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

@ Strikers : if there was a one sentence inclusion of the Mayan entry ( "2012 - The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar completes a "great cycle" of 1,872,000 days." ) then there would be no reason for users to try to add it to the deaths section. It would take away their ammo, so to speak. --APDEF (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

December 21, 2012 vandalism
I'm sick and tired of all people saying that Earth is going to die in December 21, 2012. We might have to protect this page. Somebody500 (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be protected.

Steel Wool Killer (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

2012 date in events
Was commented out, but I really don't think it should be on there at all. Its ridiculous. Should it be removed every time its added? As the page is meant to be about dates that happened. Last time I looked at a calender, we were still in 2010. Arieas (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be removed on sight. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet more 2012 vandalism
I spotted some more of this and deleted it. I recommend that this page be considered for protected status. Nekochan1973 (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been already protected. The protection doesn't expire until 23 of December this year. --Tyranitar Man (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then everyone will be dead and no need for it to be protected! I do think adding "End of the world" linked to the supposed end of the world would be a good sentiment as we're only 3 days away. As unlikely as it would, be it's not harming anyone and is a factual event which the majority of people know. This isn't someone adding the world is going to end on a random date. To disagree with this is a little petty, especially if it's linked to an article on this myth, an article which already exists. 194.138.39.55 (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a future event, and those can't be added per WP:DOY. You can add it after the world ends, otherwise it can never go here.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So it can be added after as in "The world didn't end" or "Mayan Calendar ended" something to that affect? 194.138.39.61 (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. You can add it if, and only if, the world ends.  That would be notable.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, we won't die. We will live. --Tyranitar Man (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Dragonh4t (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

2004
It states the suicide bomb attack was the most deadliest on US soldiers. The plane hitting the pentagon was a suicide bomb attack, surely that killed more US soldiers? I'm not American so I could be wrong, but I don't know how many people that plane killed, but I am under the impression it was a few hundred and the majority of people at the pentagon are soldiers. 194.138.39.60 (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Decided I'd have a look, 125 personnel were killed in the attack, there is no mention I can find how many were soldiers, however the majority of staff there are military. As only 1/5th would have to be military to beat this, should this be reworded?194.138.39.60 (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

St Thomas' Day
I do not think that 21 December is seen as St. Thomas Day in just Anglicanism but in all Christian denominations. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Births and Deaths
Continuing the ongoing effort to reduce the size of the Births and Deaths sections to make them manageable, I'm removing some celebrities with few or no articles in other wikipedias, moving the entries to the appropriate Year in Topic article if they were not already present. This is in accordance with the guidelines. See discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Days_of_the_year.Deb (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

1939 Wafic Saïd small correction
I work for Wafic Saïd and would like to propose a correction to the entry concerning his birth on this page. Given my professional role I understand that there may be a perceived conflict of interest so I am making this suggestion on the "talk" page for consideration. I would like to replace the description of Wafic Saïd as a "Syrian-Monacan businessman and philanthropist" with "Syrian-Saudi Arabian financier, businessman and philanthropist". Thank you. Syadieh (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC) As no comments have been received I am going ahead with the change. Thank you. Syadieh (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)