Talk:November 24

Births addition
1894: Herbert Sutcliffe. English cricketer, probably the best batsman that country has ever produced. In an era of uncovered pitches he averaged over 50 for a career extending from 1919 to 1939, averaging an astonishing 71.45 between 1928 and 1932.
 * he is notable enough to be included, but not with such a long, POV description

Removed / moved
Removed:
 * 1992 - Sonic the Hedgehog 2 is released for the Sega Genesis in North America.

Trivial. --mav

Moved:
 * 1871 - The National Rifle Association is granted a charter by the state of New York.

Nope - happened on November 17. --mav 04:33, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Moved:
 * 1958 - Mali becomes independent.

Nope - happened on September 22, 1960. --mav 05:35, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

CoD not given on Day or Year articles
Edited the (AIDS) out after Freddie Mercury's name in the "Deaths" section, because no one else has their cause of death after their name in the Deaths sections, and their also appears to be no special case for AIDS-related deaths, since other people who have died of it don't have it after their names in their deaths sections.

2007 Australian election
Please stop removing the Australian 2007 election with your cleanup edits. Timeshift (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have I done it more than once? "Please stop" suggests that one has edited against consensus more than once after having been asked not to.  At any rate, that event is not notable in a global context and should not be included in a date article.  You won't see any election entries anywhere else that do not involve social milestones or other unique circumstances (obviously some could slip in).  This election seems to have occurred as scheduled with no major controversy and the winner was democratically elected.  Change of the party in power is not sufficient to differentiate this election.  This is considered a repetitive event – something that happens on schedule, and should not be included.  Please have a look at WP:DOY for details.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But somehow Barack Obama's election is noteable... funny that. I see nothing in WP:DOY that says it isn't noteable. The closest it gets is: "Repetitive events - e.g. multiple sightings of comets, listing of Super Bowl winners, listing of every significant battle in a war, listings of every person to become president of a country, regardless of the impact of their presidency". The 2007 Australian election that saw a change of government does not seem to come under any of these examples. Timeshift (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the 1971 parachuter or the 1966 smoggy day (both curiously local events), a party congress in 1935 (isn't that also a recurring event?) and a single city's socialist politics (1962) vs key 2007 national election, I can see which one is more notable. In terms of world importance, the result of the 2007 election (a) was one of literally a handful in Westminster democracies at national level where the ruling party's leader has lost his own seat (I can't think of any parallels in the UK or Canada, and in Australia the previous one was 1929); (b) as with Obama, the campaign was run on radically reorienting Australia - within weeks, Australia ratified the Kyoto Protocol and within 3 months had issued an apology to the Stolen Generations. WP:CSB applies, in my view. Orderinchaos 17:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hear hear! Timeshift (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It is notable because he is the first African American president. Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and so on, are not mentioned because it is a cyclic item.Rlbarton (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Obama's election represents a social milestone and you'll find that as a criteria in WP:DOY.  You are correct that there are items that do not belong, but discussion pops up mostly for new additions.  Each entry should be evaluated on its own merits, not in comparison to others. This entry about an election is not notable in the long term and it should be excluded.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is such a notable event, then the community needs to add each election result for US, Australia, England, Russia, etc. etc. for the last few hundred years. Then the event list becomes trivial.  I agree with Orderinchaos that 1966 the most smoggy day should not be listed.  Rather than use events that are not significant as justification, lets remove them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.158.253 (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding that consensus exists that this event should be included. Consensus does not exist and this discussion is ongoing. With that in mind, the event should neither be added nor removed from the article until consensus is reached. We shouldn't have to resort to protecting the page, but if back and forth continues, it will be protected. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know Wikipedia worked by a system of page guardianship. The above view seems also to reflect a mistaken view of how consensus is reached. Plus, much less important events remain on the page, as I have outlined above. Orderinchaos 01:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think that an argument for page guardianship would be valid if I had insisted on removing the content. I am only insisting that consensus be properly reached.  The argument is not one sided so there is debate as to whether the event should be included.  Consensus is reached through reasoned debate.  If editors are adding and removing content, there is no consensus. This is very clear and certainly does not reflect a "mistaken view of how consensus is reached".  Suggesting that an entry not be added or deleted is quite impartial and only an effort to prevent edit warring.


 * Now back to the discussion at hand. This event seems to be not much more than newsworthy.  Interesting, yes, but of global impact, it seems not.  We should avoid a WP:OSE discussion because it doesn't help to establish the notability of a particular event.  We can evaluate other events separately (and there are many that absolutely should go).  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 03:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So in other words if I was to nominate just under half the entries on this page for removal given they're "not much more than newsworthy" and "not of global impact", they would be removed? I doubt that, somehow - you'd argue for their retention, and insist that because one person disagreed, there wasn't consensus. It seems a specious argument to me given 1. not *one* of the other items listed had any kind of consensus to add, per above discussion page, 2. the item being discussed is of considerable global and regional import and 3. it was on the page without incident in a shorter form for several months, only being removed by an IP editor (its removal was missed from a countervandalism perspective purely because more vandalism occurred thereafter and the vandal hitter only got the second one). It would seem there's a WP:IDONTLIKEIT case to be made here - and a significant CSB issue that Australian events are not to be covered on this page when minor events of no relevance whatsoever outside the USA are allowed to remain. Let's stop this wikilawyering now and stop pretending anything on this page got there through a considered, reasoned process (especially given the vandalism/vandal-whacking nature of the great majority of its history, which obscures any development). Orderinchaos 05:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are wrong in your assumption that I would oppose the removal of many of the non-notable items. I think you will see that I have never (that I recall) argued for inclusion of anything.  If I was the only one that thought the event should be removed I would have dropped it.  But it appears that there are other editors who feel that it should be removed as evidenced by the continued back and forth.  I am trying to avoid a long term edit war by establishing consensus either way.  If we don't, the back and forth will continue.  Hopefully other interested parties will chime in so we can move on.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Timeshift (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, IPs, not necessarily editors (I've only seen one other editor remove it.) Orderinchaos 22:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm the editor who, when patrolling recent changes, detected the entry's removal (without any explanation) from the page, and reinserted it. This was done without any bias, I was only guarding our rules. Now to my personal view: I'm not Australian, but I think this election had some impact around the world. It wasn't just another election, but a major shift of power. Although specific Australian issues might certainly have added to the election's outcome, from a global perspective it was seen in the context of the war in Iraq. Thus, it gained worldwide relevance, and attention. Furthermore, it is quite remarkable for a prime minister to lose his own seat in parliament. Therefore I'd argue for mentioning the 2007 election in this article. Cheers, --Catgut (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Jawad is Saudi Arabian?
There is no Saudi Arabia in 835. How can he Saudi Arabian ? Fariztevfik (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"Evolution Day"?
This doesn't seem to be organized by any government at any level.--2607:FEA8:D5DF:F945:E1EB:45DE:7F7F:45F2 (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)