Talk:February 14

Missing listing
Someone needs to add the Battle of Cape St Vincent, 1797.
 * Done. -- PFHLai 17:04, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Is water wet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.176.141 (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Relevance
Does this really merit a spot in the history of February 14?

2006 - United Kingdom: Samantha Cameron, wife of Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, gives birth to their third baby at Saint Mary’s Hospital, London.
 * It should definitely be excluded, as should all births of non-notable people. Notability is not inherited. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

1843 – The event that inspired the Beatles song Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! is held in England. Different user from above, but similar doubts about relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.172.28 (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong dates?

 * 1803 "1803 - Chief Justice John Marshall declares that any act of U.S. Congress that conflicts with the Constitution is void."
 * This is a reference to Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), which, acccording to Lexis, was decided on February 24th Forhall (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC) forhall


 * 1575 - Henry III of France marries Louise de Lorraine-Vaudémont.
 * That was on February 13. --172.176.43.156 19:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved. By all means if you find factual errors change them.  Thanks for the heads up. -- Death  a horseman for a better tomorrowTM  19:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The entry 1945 - Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay and Peru join the United Nations. must be wrong as the UN wasn't even formed until October of 1945 MyNameIsClare  talk  08:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Checked United Nations Member States page and none of these joined on this date. Fitzharry 13:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not globally notable
I do not feel that these two have sufficient notability or achievement to be listed in the birthday section. They have no awards or major acting roles in productions of notability. Failing any well-reasoned dissent I will remove them. --Drappel 17:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1994 - Paul Butcher Jr., American actor
 * 1994  - Allie Grant, American actress

Why no mention of 2008 shooting?
Someone requested the NIU shooting be left off the page. Why? April 16 lists the Va Tech shooting. The St Valentine's Day massacre is mention on this day for 1929. What makes this shooting any different? --Eaglescout1984 4:19, 15 February 2008 (GMT)
 * School shootings are becoming common enough that they can't reasonably be considered globally notable.   Unless a particular shooting is markedly different from a previous one, involves methods that are particularly unique or unless it leads to changes such as nationwide legislation, they are not distinct enough for inclusion and do not have an impact beyond the logal region or country.  This has been discussed at WP:NGS.  Virginia Tech and Columbine were more widely covered and impactful.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 06:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This one was is just about equally notable, and I subsequently restored it. After two days now, it remains the top story across the United States, and was the top story around the world (all the way in Australia and Argentina, even) when it occurred...it still remains as a major world news story. This should not be written off as "just another school shooting". Its coverage is right up there with Columbine and VA Tech. Abog (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Globally newsworthy does not mean globally notable. In five years, this shooting will just be lumped in with all the other school shootings.  It will not change any lives beyond those directly affected.  If and only if this particular shooting leads to radical changes in school security in the US, then it might be notable.  Otherwise, it is no different than any of the others.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, pretty bold future-predicting there. Who are you to say what's notable and what's not, anyways? From the looks of it now, it appears that this, along with Virginia Tech is synonymous with college shootings, while Colubmine and Jonesboro are synonymous with high school shootings. Abog (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, some food for thought: The Jonesboro Massacre, where casualties were less than those at NIU, is listed under March 24. But, the NIU Shootings can't be listed here? There can be multiple notable school shootings, you know. This incident has already pushed the national and global gun control debate even further into escalation and ranks as one of the deadliest college shootings ever. That alone in itself is notable.Abog (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was hoping that we could discuss the notability of this item without engaging in an edit war. When I asked that we discuss it until we could form a consensus, I was hoping that you would allow a consensus to be reached before adding the item back.  I fear that you will not engage in discussion as long as the item is included in the article - but I will try nonetheless.


 * Please elaborate on what you mean by "future-predicting". I don't understand.  Asking "who are you" seems to indicate to me that you feel that since I disagree with you I am not worthy to edit here.  Notability is determined by consensus and that is what we're trying to do here.  The event happened about two days ago.  It is difficult to assign long term notability to an item that occurred so recently.  You are in Illinois so this particular event is hitting closer to home for you so I can see how you would believe that it deserves inclusion.  From your contribution history, I can see that you are not a regular contributor to the date articles so this leads me to believe that you have a particular interest in this one event.  The question remains, what impact will this particular event have on the world in 5 years?  Please do not bring Columbine or VT into this discussion because this item needs to be evaluated on its own merits. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that you are not worthy to edit here. With my "future predicting" and "who are you" statements, I am saying that it appears that you seem to be very bold in your predictions for the future, by saying things like "It will just be lumped in with the other school shootings" and "It will not change any lives..." How do you know? Do you have a crystal ball? I still remember the Jonesboro Massacre of ten years ago which only killed like 4 people, and I'm sure people will remember this as well. Also, I checked the Notability page on Wikipedia, and most of it suggests that the item receive significant coverage in reliable, independent sources...which it has. It never really said anything about too many like incidents happening, and only the deadliest gets included. Also, remember that Wikipedia is constantly evolving, and Wikipedia is not paper, and therefore, if this notable event is not talked about and not notable five years from now, and it all of the sudden becomes insignificant and not remembered, then we can always remove it at a later date. But, right now, within the context of the past and the present, it is a globally-notable event. And unless that changes, and the event is somehow not included in future publications on school shootings and significant events of the 2000s decade, then we can remove it at that time. But right now, like Virginia Tech, Montreal, and the University of Texas Clock Tower Shootings (which are all referenced under their date), this ranks as one of the worst college shootings and a notable event that has affected world society. Also, I do periodically make edits to date and year pages. It's not the main focus that I spend all my WP efforts on, but it is something I do from time to time. Finally, I may be from Illinois, but I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know what is notable and what isn't. Abog (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you did a fine job of making my argument for me in your first sentence when you said "How do you know?" That is the point.  For something to be long-term globally notable, we need to know that it has long term impact.  These events are meant to be permanent (except for broken records).  They cannot be added with the intention that if they fall out of notability, they will be removed.  That isn't how it works.  Your reference to Notability brings up an important distinction.  The Wikicalendar has more strict notability requirements than the run-of-the-mill articles.  These articles are meant to contain the absolutely most notable events that ever occurred.   Have a look at WP:DAYS and WP:NGS for what are considered the accepted practices for these articles.  The goal of the project is to provide lists that are a step above everything else in Wikipedia. (And believe me, I know there is a lot of junk that hasn't been sifted out yet but there are only so many hours in the day and the newest items get the first attention.)  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was saying, how do you know that it won't be notable? Because as of now, it looks pretty clear that this event will be notable for a long long time. I don't know what other objective methods you use to try and gauge an event's long-term notability, besides reliable sources like print media and massive coverage? I will take a look at the guidelines you presented me, though, and see what they have to say. Abog (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I took a look at the WP guidelines you sent me. WP:DAYS really didn't give me much info, other than the fact that it needs to be notable on a global scale. WP:NGS I can't really take too seriously yet, as it has only been edited about 10 times and the entry about not including school shootings because they are "fairly common" was added by you within the past few days, and is something I doubt that many people would agree with. Wars, airplane crashes, and major terrorist attacks are also fairly common, so maybe we should not include those in the calendar too? Abog (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not having much luck making myself clearly understood but I will continue to try. The intent of the Wikicalendar is to list items that have been shown (past tense) to have long-term global notability.  Speculating that an event will be notable does not cut it.  The articles that I pointed out list guidelines that have reached a reasonable level of consensus and are widely practiced.  Perhaps I should have directed you to the talk pages of those articles so that you could see the pages of discussion that went into making (in one case) the 10 edits to make up the articles.  Number of edits does not impact the credibility of an article.  In fact there is a current discussion on school shootings here.  While they are off the topic, "Wars [most battles], airplane crashes [most], and major [minor] terrorist attacks" should not all be included as has been discussed on those project pages.  If you wish to argue for wider inclusion the best place is on the project pages.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 05:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While I posted my comments, I did go back and look at the talk pages immediately afterward, but I still disagree with the consensus of the three people or so on that issue. Also, speculating that an event will not be notable doesn't cut it either. History shows us that when an event receives as much global attention as this event has, it is notable and likely to make a significant difference for years to come. As a result of this incident already, there has been talk of organized measures to permit concealed carry on campus, proposals from government officials to make it harder for mentally ill people to acquire weapons, and so forth. I mean, what more do you want? Abog (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It could very well be likely to make a significant difference but it hasn't made a significant difference yet. Waiting for an event to be established as notable before adding it has been "cutting" it up until now.  That is, has been, and will be the practice.  If you wish to argue against the practice, please participate in the project.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 07:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It already has made a significant difference. You're just basically ignoring reality. And history shows us that when something receives as much international coverage as this has, it translates into global notability. How do you not see that? Abog (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What significant difference has it made? What new law can be attributed to it (not a proposed law)?  What tangible change in policy has been made as a result (not new talks)?  Can the impact of this event prevent future events today?  The answer to those questions is undeniably none, none, none, and no.  The bottom line is, what is different about the world today vs. February 13 because of this event?  Just because something receives media attention does not indicate long term global notability (history does not show us that).  I am absolutely certain that the death of Anna Nicole Smith received much more attention than this event ever will and her death is not a notable event, it is still just a death and is listed as such only because there is an article about her.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, going by your standards, the Virginia Tech shootings haven't changed any laws yet either. And also, this event received much more global attention than Anna Nicole Smith's death. I'm pretty sure people in foreign countries don't care about the death of an American entertainer who had little impact outside of America and as a result I doubt international coverage of her death was more significant than the coverage of this shooting. However, people around the world do care that troubled adolescents are shooting up schools and the effect that has on world society. You really need to take the blinders off and realize the impact this shooting has on global society, and quit lumping it in with minor incidents and the deaths of attractive white women. It's already one of the top 5 deadliest college shootings ever...is that not enough for you? To me, that's notable. Abog (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is clear that you are entirely unwilling to entertain the notion that this event might not warrant inclusion. Am I right?  That is troubling because it undermines the spirit of the project.  You are mistaken if you think this got more exposure than Anna Nicole Smith.  And a better example would have been her baby.  This event will be out of the news cycle in 1 month.  You really need to join the discussion here because the real decision on whether this event is included will be made there.  Preliminary consensus exists that school shootings might not warrant inclusion unless they involve extraordinary circumstances.  Your opinion needs to be heard there.  I suggest that you and I cease discussion on this topic for a week to let others chime in.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

1- I am personally in favour of mentioning school shootings as much as possible. I consider them notable because they index and sign a change in the relationship between young people and instructing institutes and in general their living environement, not just because people remember them or because they cause any legislations (most of them are in america, true, but what happens in america has got a special global meaning and effect). if what I say about "being notable" sounds arbitrary I should say that being arbitrary about such events is better than being Wikipedially conversative and just consider events notable if they cause some legislations or ... . it is too soon too consider school shootings common or minor events and thus not notable events.so ...

2- ... so I suggest a double standard for recent years' events and older years' events. we must be much less severe about recent years' events and consider many of them suitable for the "events" section.

3- so give the 2008 shooting a chance. Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Anna Howard Shaw's Birthday
Though the date is 1847, so is not a centennial, I'll suggest Anna Shaw Howard's birthday, sometimes called Anna Howard Shaw Day (but be careful linking to this - it's to a 30 Rock TV episode that's having a 1 year anniversery), because it is an alternative to Valentines Day. Smallbones (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this a commonly celebrated observance? For the most part observances should have their own article, per the guidelines. It doesn't matter whether it is a centennial or not, any entry in the Holidays and Observances should be observed every year to be included. Winston365 (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is originally a Methodist observance - celebrating their 1st American woman minister, probably women's rights issues as well, and maybe on the edge as an alternative to Valentines Day. The more modern interpretation probably goes along with the 30 Rock episode - folks need an alternative to the slick commercialism of the "holiday."  How widely observed?  It's hard for me to say - I'm not a methodist, nor a 30 Rocker.  Smallbones (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say unless the observance has it's own article it probably shouldn't be included in the Holidays and Observances section. The only supporting article Anna Howard Shaw places the holiday on February 14 or the nearest Sunday (at least by the Methodist Church), and Holidays and Observances are restricted to observances that occur on the same day each year. I don't think a 30 Rock episode is enough to establish a new holiday, especially if the date of celebration was rather ambiguous before it was mentioned on the show. Winston365 (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * 2011 – As a part of Arab spring, the still ongoing 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising (protests pictured), began.



I would appreciate if someone can fit this into this years 14 February.  Bahraini Activist  Talk to me 15:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This event is already listed on this page. What are you asking?  Adding a picture isn't appropriate.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This text should say 'on the second day' not 'first day', as the bombing already began 1 day ago? #1945 – World War II: On the first day of the bombing of Dresden, the British Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Forces begin fire-bombing Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony.#

Inaccurate information regarding Henry IV's excommunication
In this article we see that in 1076 on February 14, "Pope Gregory VII excommunicates Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor". However, in Henry IV's article, it's clearly stated that the excommunication happens on "22 February 1076". Which is correct? I see no source for either. -- BreachReach talk 04:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

25th anniversary of Pale Blue Dot
It will be soon 25 years since Voyager 1 took the iconic photograph of planet Earth from outside the solar system. Could be an idea for OTD. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Lois Maxwell & Kitten Natividad
Lois Maxwell's article says death was in 2007, not in 1960.

Kitten Natividad's page says birthdate is February 13, so she should be off this page. 85.76.73.204 (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Emperor Sigismund
The 14 February page credits that date for his birth. The linked article on Sigismund gives the date of birth as 15 February.

--Vicedomino (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Valentine's Day
@StAnselm - I don't get it. In your edit summary, you say "not actually needed" but then you go and reinstate your edit. I'm reverting it again, as per my previous edit summary - there is no citation given as per WP:DOYCITE, and it does not follow the style guide for DOY articles (WP:DOYSTYLE). Also, as per WP:BRD, you need to discuss things first before you edit again. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I meant, of course, that the *citation* was not needed. StAnselm (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And what do you mean when you say there was no citation given? StAnselm (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)