Talk:June 27/Archive 1

Stonewall riots/Gay Pride Day June 28, not 27
Pinpointing the exact date of the Stonewall riots can be difficult as the events took place over several days, in fact over the better part of a week. However, it seems to be generally accepted that the initial police raid on the Stonewall Inn, which spurred the riots, took place somewhere between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. on Saturday, June 28, 1969.

This was, of course, "Friday night", but still June 28. Furthermore, the protest continued on Saturday, June 28, with people returning to the site on Christopher Street, demonstrating and for the first time celebrating the events of the previous night, where the LGBT community had stood up to oppression and fought back. Also, the first "Christopher Street Liberation Day" (or today Gay Pride Day) march/parade took place exactly one year later, one Sunday, June 28, 1970, the 1st anniversary of the riots.

In NYC, Gay Pride Day is celebrated every year on the last Sunday in June. (The week leading up to that day is Gay Pride Week; June is Gay Pride Month.) However, if a date is to be associated with the Stonewall riots, that date should be June 28.

--194.255.112.18 20:41, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tobey Maguire
He had two entries under the "Births" category, one in 1975 and one in 1991. I deleted the 1991 one. He was born on June 27, 1975, not 1991! That would make him only 15 years old! lol

St. Ferdinand of Aragon?
This liturgical feast looks suspect. Surely some Catholic website would have something on the guy (almost all of Google's eight hits look like Wikipedia mirrors, or are empty, and the one exception, from Italy, says his feast is in July...) --Haruo 06:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus College, Oxford
Doesn't seem worth edit-warring in summaries, so I thought I'd raise this here. Yes indeed, Jesus College is only one of the colleges at Oxford, and is not the oldest. The three colleges that vie for the "oldest" tag (Merton College, Balliol and University College) do not have definite foundation dates, since nobody is quite sure when they were founded. Jesus College, at least, has a definite date (the date when Elizabeth I signed the foundation charter). Would it help if I mentioned that it was the first Protestant college founded at Oxford? I've never been a great fan of these "on this day in history" pages, but I would have thought there is room for Jesus College on this list: there's nothing between 1358 and 1709 at present, and looking at the imbalance of the entries, the list seems to suffer from "recentism", fascinating though it of course is for a worldwide audience that US Route 66 stopped being an official US highway in 1985, for example BencherliteTalk 09:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The foundation date of a college seems to me to be nothing more than trivia unless the founding itself was a particular (and enduring) milestone. I don't think being the first Protestant college in the system is a sufficient distinction.  First Protestant college in England, maybe.  The recentism observation is valid but this is necessary in a list of historical events.  This comes about because recent history is more well documented and a lot more has happened in the last three hundred years than happened in the previous 1000.  Your sarcasm is noted and understood.  In fact, you are right about stuff being in the lists that shouldn't be but the new stuff always gets noticed first.  Each event must be evaluated individually and the fact that other stuff exists just indicates that it is always a work in progress.  There aren't nearly as many people patrolling to remove things as there are adding them.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus is the 18th college founded so to justify it as the first Protestant college is rather like some of the commentaries in Test Match Special, "…the first slow left-arm orthodox bowler during a follow on after the second day to bowl two consecutive no balls round the wicket since…". I agree wholeheartedly that there remain a number of events and very many births that do not deserve their place on this page, but personally feel that one potentially contentious deletion at a time precludes me from touching the Blair/Brown passing of leadership and Route 66 as well as 1867 -The Bank of California is created looks suspect if only due to doubts as to its date. --Drappel (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The arguments for deleting this entry could easily be applied to any entry. How is the fact that any of these things happened on June 27 a fact that's notable by Wikipedia standards?  Why not propose the article for deletion, as June 27th, in and of itself, has no claim to notability?
 * This is the flaw in the argument. By the nature of a list like this, there can be no ironclad rule about what's "notable enough" to be included, save that the underlying subject be notable enough for an article of its own.  After that, it's a matter of opinion.  An example: I have no interest in or fascination with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, so the date their founder died is (to me) completely trivial.  However, I suspect there would be a broad consensus for keeping that information, since it is the subject of its own article.  Likewise, the fact that the Republic of Dubrovnik was founded on June 27th, 1358 is trivial information.  Would its historical significance be increased or diminished if it had been founded on June 28th, for example?  Applying such an arbitrarily high standard seems to serve as cover for sniping at people and events that a particular editor doesn't think are important.
 * Regarding Jesus College, Oxford, its position as the first Protestant college at Oxford has some significance, considering the religious strife that existed in England at the time, and that Oxford's preceding colleges had all been Roman Catholic. The fact that its founding (by Elizabeth I of England) occurred on June 27th and not some other date only determines which of these "day of the year" articles it gets reported under.
 * So, my position is this: Either delete these articles as composed of non-notable trivia, or give respect, credence, and some latitude to the views of editors who may want to include people and events you think of as marginal. --SSBohio 19:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion of deleting June 27 seems to be a case of making a suggestion just to make a point rather than a reasoned argument. As an aside and with no ad hominem intent, I am surprised that the death of a candidate for US President who was apparently killed for his assumed sexual practices is not of at least passing interest to you, but as long as your lack of interest is not a reason for its removal you are entitled to hold that opinion.
 * So, my position is this: Perhaps you should give respect, credence, and some latitude to the views of editors who may want to reduce the number of people and events you think of as notable and are prepared to explain their reasons rather than get on with the job of doing so.--Drappel (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking your points in turn:
 * WP:POINT doesn't concern making suggestions at all, but rather with disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. It isn't germane to this discussion, and further, bears an implication of wrongdoing.
 * I have laid out no argument; Rather, I refuted the deletionist argument being made by describing cases where the argument is invalid, as demonstrated by its invalid result.
 * As for Joseph Smith, I draw a distinction between the historic event and the date on which it happened. The question is: What is notable about his death having occurred on June 27th? E.g., would it be a more or less important event had it happened on June 28th?  I agree that his death is notable, but, carrying the deletionist argument to its conclusion, since its occurring on June 27th isn't itself notable, it shouldn't be listed here.
 * The difference between inclusion and deletion in this case is simple: If an entry is included, those who find it nonnotable or uninteresting are at liberty to ignore it; If an entry is excluded, then that liberty is taken away from the reader. It's the difference between acting according to your own will and imposing that will on everyone else.
 * In my view, the only items unquestionably excludable from these lists are people and events for which no assertion of notability could be made. For example, a person or event without an article about it is prima facie not eligible for inclusion in this list.  The foundation of a major college at a major university, at so early a time as to affect the history of higher education, as well as that of its nation, is an event the inclusion of which can reasonably be supported.  To remove it based on a subjective, comparative valuation of its worth is invalid.
 * If we're going to rule things in and rule things out when there isn't a clear and convincing reason to do so (e.g.: my birthday is out, Abraham Lincoln's is in), then we need to come up with some sort of objective criteria with which to judge each entry, rather than it being a subjective question of taste, since de gustibus non est disputandum (there's no disputing over taste). --SSBohio 20:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus College, Oxford is the 18th college founded at Oxford and since that was in 1571 the second called Jesus since Jesus College, Cambridge was founded in 1496, which seems to show it is a long way from being notable by merit of being first at things, and that there is not anything else to be said. --Drappel (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if there's nothing else to be said, I'll shut up. (As if I could.) :) Shall I take it as read that we are in agreement on the other points I raised, and that the only disagreement we have is over the notability of Jesus College, Oxford?  While I doubt that this is the case, it does seem unlikely that we can proceed toward consensus on these issues iof only one of us is speaking to them. --SSBohio 19:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

<-- Drappel, the comparison to a Test Match Special trivia item was ungracious and inaccurate. As was pointed out earlier, the change in England from Catholic to Protestant was a rather fundamental part of history. No-one seems able to point to agreed criteria for inclusion / removal of people or events. If "notable by merit of being first at things" is the criterion, then I rather think that the list of events (on this day, and all other days) would be rather short. BencherliteTalk 09:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The preceding arguments do highlight that there are no concrete criteria for inclusion of events in the lists. They also highlight that it would be very difficult to come up with such criteria.  In most cases cool heads prevail when there is a dispute and consensus is reached.  The goal of the WP:DAYS project is to maintain date articles that don't include every notable event that occurred on a particular date, but to include events that have a wide impact on world history.  Including too many events reduces the overall utility of the pages because there is nothing "special" about what the reader is seeing.  In most cases we are talking about subjective assessments of global notability.  There are rarely disputes that result in lengthy discussions (believe it or not) so the system works pretty well.  Disputes usually arise from editors who rarely edit the date articles and do not know of the project's goals but those editors have every right to question existing practice.  Since the system has worked well, it is best if particular events are evaluated on their own merits without regard for what other events happen to be present in any of the date articles (mostly because stuff gets missed and using those items in a argument gives undue weight to the argument).  Arguments for and against will be taken into account and consensus on the particular item can be reached.  This is the best way to proceed.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noticed something you said earlier, Mufka. "I don't think being the first Protestant college in the system is a sufficient distinction. First Protestant college in England, maybe." Well, as the English university "system" at that time consisted of Oxford and Cambridge, and no college at Cambridge University was founded between Trinity College in 1546 (Catholic) and Emmanuel College in 1584 (Protestant), does it qualify that way? (NB "college" is of course being used in the Oxbridge sense of a constituent part of a collegiate university, not as a synonym for "school".) BencherliteTalk 11:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Without looking into it more myself (or really absorbing your comment due to time constraints), if you can say that it was the first protestant college or university in England (private or public) then I wouldn't have a problem with its inclusion so long as you say so in the entry. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My view of the issues raised by Mufka  above:
 * Indeed, it is very difficult to come up with concrete criteria to rule items in or out of these articles. It is for this reason that I believe we must be inclusive.  If someone comes here looking for a list of events that happened on this day in history, they're not looking for our subjective interpretation and implicit editorializing about which events are worth mentioning.  Any solution needs to accommodate the broad range of reader interests.
 * It's true that criticism is more liklely to come from outside the tent than within it, since the people inside the project are already in broad agreement. However, the inside/outside paradigm leads to an insular kind of thinking, i.e. "This outsider is critical of our process; He must not understand the goals of the project."
 * The lack of disputes is not, of itself, evidence of how well the system works. In my experience, many editors, when rebuffed by a reversion, simply move on to more welcoming areas of the project. On the other hand, some of us are stubborn. :)
 * In the absence of clear policy as to which events are worthy and which are not, one of the few sources of information we have is historical precedent. Saying that we should give no regard to what other events make the cut is asking for the judgment to be made in a vacuum.
 * Since many deletions of content from these articles go unchallenged, reliance upon discussion and consensus would be a dubious proposition, since many deletions are made with no notice to the contributing editor, much less with any discussion or consensus-building.
 * In the final analysis, we are left to consider what should be included in a "today in history" article. We have one basic principle: There has to be an article on the subject or event in question.  Beyond that, it's a matter of editorial discretion. Every time an entry that's in the "grey area" is deleted based on the caprice of an editor's subjective judgment, the fact that the deletion goes unchallenged is not an endorsement of it.  Unless an editor watches for such things, it's likely to go unnoticed, and, even if noticed, may not be responded to.  Which items are includable and which aren't needs to be the result of applying objective criteria, not subjective judgment.  --SSBohio 19:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible candidates for removal
Well, if we're improving these lists one day at a time, do the following entries meet your personal standards for inclusion (based on importance to world history, being the first of something, or whatever)?


 * 1) 1806 – The British capture Buenos Aires during the British invasions of the Río de la Plata.
 * Just one event in a war, remove. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 1844 – Joseph Smith, Jr., founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and his brother Hyrum Smith, are murdered by a mob at the Carthage, Illinois jail.
 * The names are already included in the "deaths" section; remove. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 1864 – American Civil War: Battle of Kennesaw Mountain.
 * Just one event in a war, remove. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 1867 – The Bank of California is created.
 * Just a bank, remove. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 1941 – German troops capture the city of Białystok during Operation Barbarossa.
 * Just one event in a war, remove. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 1957 – Hurricane Audrey kills 500 people in Louisiana and Texas.
 * Just another weather event, no impact on world history; remove. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 1966 – The first broadcast of Dark Shadows is aired on ABC-TV.
 * Just another American TV programme; remove. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 1976 – Air France Flight 139 (Tel Aviv-Athens-Paris) is hijacked en route to Paris by the PLO and redirected to Entebbe, Uganda.
 * Just another hijack; remove. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 1980 – A commercial DC-9 (Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870) crashes near Ustica, Italy, killing 81.
 * Just another aircrash, remove. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 1982 – Space Shuttle Columbia launched from the Kennedy Space Center on the final research and development flight mission, STS-4.
 * Just another space shuttle flight, remove. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 1984 – Pierre Elliott Trudeau wins the Albert Einstein Peace Prize.
 * Just another prize winner, remove. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 1985 – U.S. Route 66 ceases to be an official U.S. highway.
 * So what? Remove. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 1986 – The International Court of Justice finds against the United States in its judgement in Nicaragua v. United States.
 * And the importance of this is? Lots of ICJ decisions; does each one merit an entry? Remove. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 1987 – A commercial HS 748 (Philippine Airlines Flight 206) crashes near Baguio City, Philippines, killing 50.
 * Another crash. Remove, BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 1998 – Opening of the Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Malaysia.
 * Just another airport. Remove. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 2001 – The International Court of Justice finds against the United States in its judgement in the LaGrand Case.
 * And again. Remove. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 2003 – The United States National Do Not Call Registry, formed to combat unwanted telemarketing calls and administered by the Federal Trade Commission, enrolls almost three-quarters of a million phone numbers on its first day.
 * No importance for world history. Remove. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 2005 – AMD files broad antitrust complaints against Intel Corporation in U.S. Federal District Court, alleging abuse of monopoly powers and antitrust violations.
 * Same again. Remove. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 2008 – Bill Gates steps down as Chairman of Microsoft Corporation to work full time for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
 * Hardly earth-shattering. Remove. BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts? BencherliteTalk 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this discussion be held elsewhere? User:Mufka and User:Drappel already belong to this group, and should have taken it there by now:
 * WikiProject Days of the year
 * WP:DOY, which redirects to Days of the year
 * Wdfarmer (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is specific to this article, not to the project in general. This is the place for it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Surely the general issues being discussed here are common to more than just the article for June 27. &mdash; Wdfarmer (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Seven Sleepers picture
Why was this removed? I'm putting it back. &mdash; Wdfarmer (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The addition of images to the date articles is generally discouraged. The reason is that there are so many entries, it is nearly impossible to determine which images represent the most notable events on the page.  Elevating one event over another usually represents a subjective judgement and we try to discourage it.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll revert my undo.&mdash; Wdfarmer (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)