Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/December 7

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Howcheng in topic 2021 notes
Today's featured article for December 7, 2024
Arthur pictured in 1941
Arthur pictured in 1941

Wilfred Arthur (7 December 1919 – 23 December 2000) was a fighter ace and senior officer of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) during World War II. Commonly known as "Woof", he was credited with ten aerial victories and led combat formations at squadron and wing level, becoming the youngest group captain in RAAF's history. Arthur first saw action in the Middle East and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for shooting down four aircraft in a single sortie. He was then posted to New Guinea, where he received the Distinguished Service Order for continuing to lead an attack after discovering his guns were inoperable. As wing leader of No. 71 Wing, he was severely burned in a runway collision. Upon recovery, he was posted to the Dutch East Indies and played a leading part in the Morotai Mutiny when eight RAAF officers attempted to resign. Following his discharge, he pursued business interests in Australia and Vietnam, before settling in Darwin, Northern Territory. (Full article...)

Recently featured:
Picture of the day for December 7, 2024

The featured picture for this day has not yet been chosen.

In general, pictures of the day are scheduled in order of promotion to featured status. See Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines for full guidelines.

Two executions may be a bit too much. Surely we can replace one with something else... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Pearl Harbor

edit

I think we may need to remove an event or two from this page anyways. The Pearl Harbor anniversary, although listed on this page, does not appear on the main page. While I understand that well-written articles take precedence over important ones, the Pearl Harbor article is written well and the event is far too important to ignore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.253.72 (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree...it had far more significance than the other five, and lends credence to the "Wikipedia is too liberal" argument. Smarkflea (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Err, have you not noticed that USS Arizona – sunk during the Pearl Harbour attack – is Today's Featured Article, to mark the 70th anniversary? It's standard procedure not to repeat in "On this day" an event marked in the Featured Article section. BencherliteTalk 00:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
The featured article is a ship, not the actual attack...Smarkflea (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Read the blurb (above). It's largely about the attack and subsequent events. The photograph is of the attack. The article was chosen to mark the 70th anniversary of the attack. Pearl Harbour is not going to be added to "On this day" this year. BencherliteTalk 00:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Wow, how autocratic of you, "Bencherlite". Although the featured article is the USS Arizonia, nonetheless it's still not obvious enough that today is an important anniversary. The actual date (December 7, 1941) is crammed into a large body of text already filled with numbers, and will not be seen at a casual glance. Moreover, people who are not already versed in WWII history will not realize what the article is about. I can assure you most people do not know the names of the ships sunk that day. The "on this day" section is an opportunity to call to mind important events that otherwise might slip by unnoticed, especially by the younger generation, which is most of our demographic here.
So this is not an optimal solution. While I agree that we don't need both a featured article AND a bullet point in the anniversary section, there is overall no indication that an extremely important event in world history happened today. A short blurb in the holidays strip up top might remedy this. In any case, omitting any direct reference to the date will surely seem like a slap in the face to many users, which seems to me like pretty poor policy/approach on Wikipedia's part. GrimmC (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
The box at the top of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 7 says this: Please note that the events listed on the Main Page are chosen based more on relative article quality and to maintain a mix of topics, not based solely on how important or significant their subjects are. Only 5–6 events are posted at a time and thus not everything that is "most important and significant" can be listed. In addition, an event is not generally posted this year if it is also the subject of the scheduled December 7, 2011 featured article or the December 7, 2011 featured picture. So it's not some rule I'm making up of my own initiative. I'm not even the one who hid Pearl Harbor from the anniversaries box; that was another editor (in fact, the one who is the most experienced custodian of the "On this day" pages on the main page). Quite why you think that someone would miss the Pearl Harbor detail on a casual glance of the TFA but yet see it by scrolling down the page to a different section... no, I'm afraid I just don't understand your implication that someone would only start paying attention and reading properly at the bottom of the page. The TFA blurb is less than 200 words, and 7 December 1941 is the only date there. It's not hard to notice. You say "There is overall no indication that an extremely important event in world history happened today". No, that's simply not right. The TFA blurb says "During the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941..." and I fail to see why that isn't enough. There obviously IS a direct reference to the date on the main page - in fact, you contradict yourself because you mention it in your first paragraph! Perhaps you would like bells, whistles and BIG BOLD TYPE for that, but that's not how the main page works. No-one is slapping anyone in the face: in fact, on the contrary, a lot of people went to a lot of trouble to make sure that the most important slot on the main page could be about the USS Arizona on this day of all days and so a little thank you to them (I wasn't one of them) wouldn't go amiss. Perhaps these hypothetical users of whom you speak would be more offended by your inability to spell the name of the ship correctly. BencherliteTalk 14:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
As the primary editor on the Arizona article, I think that it suffices to commemorate the attack this year. Hopefully, the main article on the attack will be a FA in time for the 75th anniversary. There's a tremendous amount of competition for space on the front page and I don't think that Pearl Harbor was so important that it should be commemorated each and every year. It looms large in recent history, but not so much in world history. Hell, I'm not even sure that it was more important than the other major Japanese sneak attack; the one on the Russian Fleet in Port Arthur in 1904. That started the Russo-Japanese War which was the first defeat of an Western nation by an Asian one in the Industrial Age.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
The facts remain that many people will not notice the commerative aspect of the article. I use wikipedia every day, but I generally don't give the featured article more than a cursory glance. On the other hand, I do thoroughly the "on this day..." section every time I log on. Some people are just more date-oriented; some enjoy straight history, such as myself.
Moreover, you may notice that only one other person in this discussion agrees with you, and that person has a vested interest in this discussion. You can be sure many other people disagreed with the situation but didn't take the time to get the talk page, or were unable to find it in the first place. Do you the think the average user/viewer of wikipedia knows how to find this page? It certainly took me awhile. I'm sure certain demographic segments of wikipedia's audience (particularly elderly) are unable to navigate to this section.
Finally, it is not your place to determine whether certain users are "hypocritical", nor is my typo of "Arizona" in any way relevant. It is simply a fact that many people are likely to be unhappy/offended/whatever that Pearl Harbor is not noticeably commemorated in the section that commemorates historical events. Even the guidelines you quoted allow for it to displayed. This is basic public relations. Have a good one. GrimmC (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
"Hypocritical"?! No, I said "hypothetical". Please don't misquote me. And it's not just me + Sturmvogel (who hardly has a vested interest in the "On this day" section even today) vs you and Smarkflea: Howcheng made the edit hiding the Pearl Harbor anniversary, so that's one more, and Howcheng's edit was in accordance with the long-established consensus that we don't duplicate material in "On this day" if it's in "Today's featured article". You plus Smarkflea plus your complete guess that "many" other people are likely to be offended does not amount to consensus to overturn the standard approach to such matters. As for finding the venue to complain, lots of people are able to find WP:ERRORS on a daily basis - I should know, I'm one of the admins regularly keeping an eye on it. It's even linked from the top of this page when you try to edit: "Are you here to report an error while this is on the Main Page? Not many administrators are watching this talk page, so you'd be better off telling someone at WP:ERRORS. Thanks!" I can't say that WP:ERRORS has been exactly flooded with complaints that Wikipedia has made them unhappy or offended them by not mentioning the Pearl Harbor attack twice. Tell you what - I'll complain there for you, linking to this discussion and setting out your main points. That way you have more chance of your complaint being seen. BencherliteTalk 19:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
It is a long-established practice to omit an event from OTD when it (or a related article) appears as Today's Featured Article or Today's Featured Picture. To wit: Pearl Harbor was taken off in 2009; September 11 attacks was hidden in 2008, 2009 (it was later restored as it turned out to be not the subject of TFA), 2010 and 2011; the Hiroshima bombing was taken off in 2010; Hurricane Katrina was taken off in 2008. There are a bunch of other examples but I don't have time to hunt them down now. howcheng {chat} 19:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

2012 notes

edit

howcheng {chat} 01:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

2013 notes

edit

howcheng {chat} 06:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

2014 notes

edit

howcheng {chat} 08:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

2015 notes

edit

howcheng {chat} 08:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

2016 notes

edit

howcheng {chat} 22:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

2017 notes

edit

howcheng {chat} 16:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

2018 notes

edit

howcheng {chat} 17:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

2019 notes

edit

2020 notes

edit

howcheng {chat} 07:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

2021 notes

edit

howcheng {chat} 08:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply