Talk:March 8/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about March 8. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Unreferenced and incorrectly dated events

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Yesterday, I decided to stop being a wuss and said to myself it's time to be bold. I've been combing these pages for months now and many seem to be a joke. Of course, I didn't realize how much I decimated the March 7 page until after I saved it. I cringed.

Since this page is similar to March 7, and five others I've thoroughly checked and never did anything about, I decided to become a wuss again and post this link here for scrutiny of what's unreferenced, misplaced, or in one extreme case, not notable. If anyone has agrees with my removing the items, moving the misplaced items and once again annihilating half a page, say so and I'll be more than glad to do it. Everybody works hard on these pages but this to me is absolute "horse hockey." 00:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW: When I say no references, I mean none in any linked articles Kentholke (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If you've done your fact checking carefully (check every link), and you are sure that the entries are not referenced or wrong dates, be bold and remove them. I'd skip the ones of questionable notability during large cleanups, just because you don't want to have an argument over notability get mixed up with the necessary maintenance of unreferenced or wrong dates. I've done similar removals. I started from the end of the calendar working backwards, but I never finished. See this example. One thing you should be sure to do is to leave a very descriptive edit summary. Something like removed a large number of unsupported or incorrect entries - please discuss any concerns on the talk page. My first thought when I start a cleanup like that is "there can't be that many that are wrong". But after much back and forth checking, it turns out that there are a lot. Just be very responsive to any push-back. If you're inclined, and you come across an entry that looks like it really belongs, but doesn't have support, you might try to add the support to the linked article. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

International Women's Day

the article states that:

1911 - International Women's Day is celebrated for the first time.

ive read here (Arabic) that the celebration of the womens day in 1911 happened on the 19th of march, and that in 1977 8th of march was chosen by the UN general assembly to celebrate the International Women's Day! any reference to the date in the current article?

Discussion over disputed entries

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The page has been protected to stop the recent disputes over the two additions to the article (the IRS/income tax and US Civil War entries). Please discuss these changes below, and arive at a consensus before the protection is lifted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The additions in question are:

1861 - St. Augustine, Florida surrenders to Union forces.
1913 - The Internal Revenue Service begins to levy and collect federal income taxes, as provided for under the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Federal income taxes had previously beencollected from 1864-1872.
1930 - Mahatma Gandhi starts civil disobedience in India.
1934 - A photograph by astronomer Edwin Hubble shows there are as many galaxies in the universe as there are stars in the Milky Way.
1979 - First extraterrestrial volcano discovered on Io, a satellite of the planet Jupiter.
1991 - First U.S. troops arrive home from the Gulf War; Iraq hands over 40 foreign journalists and two American soldiers it had captured.

While I don't doubt that the editor was initially acting in good faith, the contributions ultimately were treated as vandalism when the editor would not engage in discussion on the entries. While the entries might be considered notable enough for inclusion, they do not link to articles that support them. Since the entries could not be verified they needed to be removed. Further, since the editor was blocked for the edits on one IP (74.127.88.11) and proceeded to insert the events with another IP (64.244.252.35) and then created a user account (Pascheez) all while ignoring warnings, I could only assume that the editor was no longer acting in good faith. The reversions that I made today were in an effort "to undo actions performed by banned users or currently blocked users evading their block;" per Wikipedia:3rr#Exceptions. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)