Talk:February 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Days of the Year, a Wikiproject dedicated to improving and maintaining the style guide for date pages.


This box: view • talk • edit
Selected anniversaries for this day
Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box.

February 1: Imbolc (Northern Hemisphere); Feast of St. Brigid of Kildare (Western Christianity)

First Wankel engine at the Deutsches Museum in Bonn, Germany

More events: January 31 – February 1 – February 2

Archive – By email – More anniversaries...
It is now 00:26, June 15, 2008 (UTC) – Refresh this page

2004 At least 244 people were killed in a stampede during the annual Muslim Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia, after two million pilgrims flocked to Jamarat Bridge in Mena to throw stones at pillars representing the devil.

"2019 - Predicted date of possible collision of 2002 NT7 with Earth."

Alarmist long-shot prediction. Any agreement that it should be removed from the list of events? Everyking 02:19, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Janet Jackson

Oh come on, Janet Jacksons boob showing on TV is a significant event in history? I'm removing it but if anyone thinks otherwise feel free to revert it back

Well it certainly woke up the FCC here in the U.S.. --David Iberri | Talk 22:30, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I restored it. I agree that the US overreacted and appeared pitiful in the eyes of the rest of the world. Nonetheless, regardless of how you feel about the actual issue, it WAS an issue, covered in the media in the US, prompting FCC reform, and made the country the laughing stock of the world. If " Trevor Chappell bowls an Underarm Ball to Brian McKechnie" in 1981 is acceptable, I think the Janet Jackson thing definitely qualifies. 24.149.185.189 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a long-term globally notable event. It did not have global consequences and it will not be remembered as a significant event in 10 years. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 04:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It's been 4 years and it still has repercussions...what makes you think that it won't? What makes it less significant than the merger of a failed railroad or the birth of someone on The Hills? More importantly, an article exists on it. If the event is significant enough to warrant an article, it's significant enough to be listed on a page of events that happened on that day. --SmashvilleBONK! 04:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It is notable because the federal government took action because of it. Kingturtle (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I won't remove it again, but I'd like to understand why it is globally notable. Why is something that the US government responded to notable in Bali or Kenya? What real and tangible effect has it had on how people watch television all over the world? What are the repercussions that everyone has to deal with today? In 20 years, I can't imagine sitting with my children and saying "I remember one day a lady exposed her breast on tv and that changed the way everyone watched tv". These articles are terribly bloated with pseudo-notable events and I'd just like to see that thought has gone into what is included. I also want to be able to defend the inclusion if someone else removes it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 04:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It's notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia that survived the AfD process. --SmashvilleBONK! 05:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but just having an article is not a qualifier for an entry. Should it be a stated qualifier? Does having an article about an event automatically make it notable enough for inclusion? Articles are only required to meet WP:N. That says nothing of global notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 05:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Mufka, these items don't have to have global significance. They can have national significance. Wikipedia:Notability on a global scale over time is not policy; it is a proposal, and one with which I think has many problems to it. Surely "The capital of Upper Canada is moved from Newark to York" and "Convicted bank robber Patty Hearst is released from prison after her sentence was commuted by President Jimmy Carter" are not globally significant, but they are notable events and should be listed. In the case of Janet Jackson, this was an event that changed federal law. Kingturtle (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the mentioned article is not a policy, but it is widely accepted as "the way things are". If that were not the case, the articles would be filled with redlinks, unsupported random events, and pretty much anything that anyone wanted to add and no one would be justified in removing them. It has been longstanding practice that the events need to be globally notable and consensus that wrote the "non-policy" determined that - things do have to have global significance. The discussion always devolves into "but this other thing is in there" and my response is always that there are only so many hours in the day. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 05:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
But it isn't the way things are. It is not actually common practice that things have to be globally notable. On February 1 alone there are about eleven events listed (not including the cricket story and the janet jackson story) that do not qualify under the "globally accepted" model. And that's ok. You'll find the same number on most day-of-the-year articles. Kingturtle (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Should I take that to mean that "The items selected should be relevant to all Wikipedians, regardless of nationality, interests, and beliefs." doesn't mean globally notable? And "Notability on a global scale over time" doesn't mean globally notable. Respectfully, I don't think you've been closely following the edit patterns of the date articles over the last year or so. Global notability has been a huge factor in what is added to the articles. And I will say again, there are a lot of entries that do not belong, but those who are watching the pages are always going to see the newest entries first and only a few of the editors actually read all of the events and prune the non-notable entries. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 06:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This "event" is interesting in regards to the date page. The scene did cause broadcasters in the US to become scared of violating that very loosely defined standard called 'decency'. And rightly so as it could cost them a lot of money. Due to the money issue broadcasters in the US began to censor a lot more of the content of the programs they air. In my opinion this censorship sent the broadcasting industry back 50 years, but just as the past 50 years saw the changing from idealist programs to real-life programs (I don't mean reality-TV, I mean real-life behavior), the next 5-10 years will see the same changes. I remember when bitch, damn, and hell were completely unacceptable, now every show seems to use them quite frequently.
As for its notability I think that, although it seems to be quite significant now, it won't be quite so notable in the future. It will become more trivia then a significant historical fact. This reminds me of The Simpsons where the minister's wife runs around screaming 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!'. She gets everyone worked up, they create some new law to address the issue, then by the end of the show it all goes back to the way it was at the beginning. It's all just a knee-jerk reaction to a non-issue.
My suggestion, for the moment, is to leave the event on the date page, as it was the cause of the creation and passage of a new US law, FCC investigations, and lawsuits (all of which at the expense of the US tax-payer, I could go into that but I won't). When someone asks why there are "special" versions of broadcast programs for US citizens, this "event" will be pointed at as one of the contributing factors. In 5-10 years (or sooner depending on how long the US ultra-conservatism can last) this "event" can be re-discussed, and most likely will be deemed a non-notable event.
I would, however, strongly suggest that the entry be re-worded to sound less trivial. I haven't been able to come up with anything that doesn't sound biased. Although this is probably the best description IMO: "Lady shows boob, old man gets a stiffy, wife gets mad, old man passes new law", it really isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. I will continue to think of a better way to word it, but if someone can come up with something please add it.Grouf(talk • contribs) 19:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I have re-worded the entry. Grouf(talk • contribs) 20:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Nicely done! Kingturtle (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Agwenyi Day

"This day is known as National Agwenyi Day in Africa and most of North America." Aside from the statement on this page, I could find nothing else on the web about "National Agwenyi Day". For a holiday that is observed throughout Africa and in "most" of North America, it seems odd that the web has no information about it whatsoever. I suspect someone is having fun at the expense of naive readers. I'm going to remove that sentence, though if this actually is a real holiday, I hope someone knowledgeable about it will not only add the sentence back in, but also write a Wikipedia article about it.