Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/May 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q1: Why is [Insert event here], an event that is "more important and significant" than all the others that are currently listed, not posted?
A1: Relative article quality along with the mix of topics already listed are often deciding factors in what gets posted. Any given day of the year can have a great many important or significant historical events. The problem is that there is generally only room on the Main Page to list about 5 events at a time, so not everything can be posted.
As stated on Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page, the items and events posted on the Main Page are chosen based more on how well they are written, not based on how much important or significant their subjects are. It is easier for admins to select a well-written, cited, verifiable article over a poor one versus trying to determine objectively how much a subject is important or significant.
Keep in mind that the quality requirements only apply to the selected bolded article, not the other links. Thus, an event may qualify for multiple dates in a year if there is an article written in a summary style and an article providing detailed content; if one of those pages have cleanup issues, the other page can be bolded as an alternate.
Another criterion is to maintain some variety of topics, and not exhibit, just for example, tech-centrism, or the belief that the world stops at the edge of the English-speaking world. Many days have a large pool of potential articles, so they will rotate in and out every year to give each one some Main Page exposure. In addition, an event is not posted if it is also the subject of this year's scheduled featured article or featured picture.
Q2: There are way too many 20th-century events listed. Why aren't there more events from the 19th century and before?
A2: The short, basic reason is the systemic bias of Wikipedia. There are not enough good, well-written articles on 19th-century and earlier events for all 365 days in the year. Currently, a majority of users seem to be generally more interested in writing articles about recent events. If you would like to further help mitigate the systemic bias in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
Q3: This page seems to be biased toward events based in [Insert country or region here]. What can be done about it?
A3: This again is attributed to the systemic bias of Wikipedia. Many users are generally more interested in working on good, well-written articles pertaining to their home country. Since this is the English Wikipedia, there will be more English-speaking users, and thus more articles pertaining to English-speaking countries. And if there are more users who are from the United States, there will probably be more well-written articles about events based in the United States. Again, if you would like to further help mitigate the systemic bias in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
Q4: Why is the birthday/death anniversary of [Insert name here] not listed?
A4: There are only three slots available for birth and death anniversaries. As with the events, article quality and diversity in time period, geography, and reason for notability are all contributing factors in whether an article gets selected for inclusion.
Q5: Are the holidays/observances listed in any particular order?
A5: Yes, there is a specified order: International observances first, then alphabetically by where observed.
Q6: Some of the holidays/observances that are listed have dates in parentheses beside them. What do they mean?
A6: There are two reasons that some holidays/observances have dates next to them:
  • Non-Gregorian-based holidays/observances are marked with the current year as a reminder to others that their dates do in fact vary from year to year.
  • National Days, Independence Days, and other holidays celebrating the nationhood of a country are generally marked by the year of the significant historic date being observed.
Today's featured article for May 7, 2021
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 7, 2021
Picture of the day for May 7, 2021
August Friedrich Schenck

August Friedrich Schenck (1828–1901) was a German painter. This oil on canvas painting entitled Anguish is perhaps his most famous work, and shows a ewe grieving over the body of her dead lamb as they are encircled by black crows. The painting is in the collection of the National Gallery of Victoria, Australia.

Painting credit: August Friedrich Schenck

Recently featured:

Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/May 6 * Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/May 8

Famous Turkish researcher Cigdem Canatan was born in 1981.

May 7 is the proper page for such events. Thanks. -- PFHLai 17:30, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Kiev offensive[edit]

correction proposed:

Proposed version in agreement with an article:

Proposed by Irpen

    • We could add vandalizing the city covered in the article too, but that would make an entry too long, wouldn't it? --Irpen 19:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
They held the city from May 7 to June 13, so "within days", while strictly speaking true, does not really reflect the time interval accurately. The parade is also not important enough to mention in this very brief, one sentence note. But I could see Irpen's point that "Polish-Ukrainian" indeed does not reflect the fact that the Ukrainian contribution was rather minor, and that could be rephrased. Balcer 20:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant within weeks. Or we can say "in about a month". Parade is not important enough in general, but in this context it is important. It is unusual to hold a parade in the conquered city and then get oneself kicked out in a couple of weeks following that. This is a trivia section, so the parade is more important than the vandalism of the city's infrastructure for this entry, while the latter was more important for the city itslef. --Irpen 20:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's focus on today's anniversaries, instead of anniversaries for May 9th or May 24th, and avoid making things too complicated and difficult to read. For 2007, perhaps we can move this item to May 9 for the anniversary of the parade (better if the Kiev Offensive wikipage gets more detail on the parade). The template for May 7th right now has too much military-related events. We need better balance here. -- PFHLai 22:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
On second thoughts, a move to May 9th is not that good an idea. That's Victory Day for the end of WW2. It may be confusing. -- PFHLai 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's unlock the page as it is not current now, and try to work out the proposal there. We have a year to do it. --Irpen 21:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It's now unprotected. Have fun. Please don't make it too long. BTW, the 1945 Alfred Jodl line will probably be gone soon. -- PFHLai 21:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, where does this "Victors-Liberators" expression come from? It sounds all wrong, and it's incorrect English anyway. I certainly can't think of any Polish expression that would translate into this. Are you translating from Russian here? Balcer 22:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, could you please shorten the line, remove the POV ("symbolic" ?) and keep to May 7th Anniversaries. Otherwise, I'd revert to the previous version. It's better to highlight what happened that May 7 on this May 7 Anniversaries template, instead of trying to summarize the whole article in one sentence. -- PFHLai 22:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I agree with you both. Issue by issue: "symbolic" is important here because that how it was. It was a primarily a Polish operation and not a joint one. It is elaborated a bit on that in the article and its talk. Please take a look. If you need to shorten, throwing out the Ukrainian participation entirely would be closer to truth than to present it as something meaningful for that operation. Also, PFHLai, don't you think it is important to show that the conquest (or liberation or whatever) lasted for only a month? Otherwise, the article makes an impression of a significant victory which it wasn't at all.

Balcer, I got this indeed from a Ukrainian translation. Both the Russian and the Ukrainian text of the ref are linked to the article in the ref list. Please take a look at the Machalski's diary entry --Irpen 22:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If we want to keep it, "Victors-Liberators" must be changed to an actual English expression. Please propose something sensible. But on the whole I agree with PFHLai. This simple one sentence entry should only refer to what happened precisely on May 7. Users interested in what happened after can just click the link and read the article. After all, that is the whole point, to arouse the reader's curiousity and encourage him to explore. We don't need all the information crammed into this one sentece. Balcer 23:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What would your suggestion be? The original version was just misleading. It beefed up Ukrainian participation, as if Ukrainians supported the operation, and made an impression of an important victory, while in reality it was like a sleep-walking army entering the city left for them, and reteating afterwards in a similar manner without any attempt to defend it. By a quirk twist, this happened to be the most important city of Ukraine that Poles controlled some hundreds years ago for centuries and here for another months. --Irpen 23:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The version just before the unprotection seemed fine to me. I would not mind adding "symbolic" or "token" in front of "Ukrainian forces", but on the other hand one can make a good argument that this is POV, and not objective. After all, how does one define "symbolic" or "token"?
One quick point: Poland actually formally had Kiev within its borders from 1569 to 1667, which is less than 100 years. Anyway, the Selected anniversary page is not the place to educate the reader about the quirks, twists, and ironies of history.
Anyway, let me ask you a personal question. You have this great animosity towards the idea of Poles controlling Ukraine militarily in 1920 and helping Petliura set up a state allied with Poland. But really, would that outcome be so much worse than what actually happened? After all Poland, a country comparable in size to Ukraine, would never be able to dominate it the way Russia did after it became a part of the Soviet Union. If you want to continue a discussion along those lines, put your reply on my or your talk page. Balcer 23:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to ask how important the capture of Kiev is in history. Is it an important event in the Polish-Soviet War ? It's better to have a sentence to reflect this importance. If what happened on May 7, 1920 was not that critical, may be the article should not be featured on the Selected Anniversary section on MainPage. Would the start of the Kiev Offensive on April 24 be a better event to feature ? I need sth to bump Operation Eagle Claw off the April 24 template, anyway. -- PFHLai 23:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess the analogy can be made to Napoleon's capture of Moscow in September, 1812. Great things were expected of that event, but in the end it came to very little. That does not necessarily make it non-notable though. Balcer 23:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
IMO, the capture was not important at all. That's why my amazement of it being pictured on the front page. This is not even close to the Napoleon's capture of Moscow. The latter is still deeply in the memory of Russia and whole Europe, while Kievans never think of this event at all. Also, Moscow capture brought about a huge fire that destroyed the city. The damage the retreating Polish forces inflicted on the city was large too (see article), but not anywhere comparable to the damage of Moscow. Finally, there was no city battle or anything. The event seem to be important in the Polish historiography, from what a gather here, but not too much outside of it. So, I don't insist on it featured on the main page. Besides, I didn't add it here and it is my amazement over its presence, and especially in the form at which it was locked for 24 hours, that caused my attempt to do something about it. I am fine if it is removed from the "selected" list. --Irpen 00:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Balcer, I am flattered by your interest towards my own take on these. We can indeed continue this at the user talk pages. --Irpen 00:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I am of course not saying the two events were close in importance. That was simply one analogy that came to mind. In fact, Kiev changed hands about half a dozen times in 1917-1920, so the city's capture by the Poles in 1920 was just another episode of that turbulent period in Kiev's history, and hence not as notable as the taking of Moscow by a foreign army in 1812, the only such occurence in the past four centuries. I am neutral on whether this is left on the anniversary list. Balcer 01:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am removing it then and we can discuss the article and the issues at the article's talk. --Irpen 01:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Good. It's always good to have Wikipedians who know their history books well (I don't !) help edit the Selected Anniversaries template. Thanks, guys. -- PFHLai 02:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

2012 notes[edit]

howcheng {chat} 10:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

2013 notes[edit]

howcheng {chat} 06:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

2014 request[edit]

Hand-coloured Thomas Dutton lithograph of the City of Adelaide in 1864.
Cruickshanks (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Article looks good enough to include. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

2014 notes[edit]

howcheng {chat} 06:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

2015 notes[edit]

howcheng {chat} 10:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

2016 notes[edit]

howcheng {chat} 15:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

2017 notes[edit]

howcheng {chat} 03:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

2018 notes[edit]

I moved Cult of the Supreme Being to ineligible as its lead is too short, and moved 1960 U-2 incident and Archaic human admixture with modern humans in. I moved 2009 Napier shootings, partly due to its proximity to 2010, and partly because the less shooter stuff we have on the main page the better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

2018 notes[edit]

howcheng {chat} 15:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

2019 notes[edit]

howcheng {chat} 15:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

2020 notes[edit]

howcheng {chat} 17:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)