Talk:September 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconDays of the year
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Days of the Year, a WikiProject dedicated to improving and maintaining the style guide for date pages.Days of the yearWikipedia:WikiProject Days of the yearTemplate:WikiProject Days of the yearDays of the year articles
This box: view • talk • edit
Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page
Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box.

September 28: Meskel in Ethiopia and Eritrea (2024)

Alexander Fleming
Alexander Fleming
More anniversaries:


Kazan[edit]

Elia Kazan is listed as Hungarian. Elsewhere he is listed as having Greek parents and being born in Istanbul. Obviously an error here.

Changing this.Μάριος Ζηντίλης 05:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek[edit]

Use it as a reference? What, the bit about some star trek episode first being shown? Loons.

Sharon's visit[edit]

To limit the item to mentioning Sharons visit (and also only referring to it, as the Mosque and not the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism) makes that entry, opinionated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ucscottb4u (talk • contribs) .

"Al-Aqsa Intifada begins", while technically a whole sentence, is far too insufficient. Whether Sharon's visit was the cause -- or intent -- it's indisputable that the violence followed his visit, which is what the entry says. Trying to remove this is a form of whitewashing. And as for the Temple Mount argument, please don't tell me you're going to recycle the old "it's holier to us than it is to them!" argument. --CalendarWatcher 01:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothign to do with my point of view. My edits are about REMOVING point of view. if i wanted to add my point of view there are like 12 different things that could be added on the other side of the argument. lets just leave it at it began this day. Its not a question of who the site is holier to, its holy to both religions but that again is not why i remved the reference to Sharon. Ucscottb4u 01:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ucscottb4u...I didn't revert the substance of the dispute. Here's what I deleted, because it adds nothing to the entry:
"It would continue for another 6 years." Was there a definitive ending?
Can we all accept the Mitchell Report as an unbiased source? Here's what he says; does this help?
Accordingly, we have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity; or to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the GOI to respond with lethal force. However, there is also no evidence on which to conclude that the PA made a consistent effort to contain the demonstrations and control the violence once it began; or that the GOI made a consistent effort to use non-lethal means to control demonstrations of unarmed Palestinians. Amid rising anger, fear, and mistrust, each side assumed the worst about the other and acted accordingly.
The Sharon visit did not cause the "Al-Aqsa Initifada." But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited. More significant were the events that followed: the decision of the Israeli police on September 29 to use lethal means against the Palestinian demonstrators; and the subsequent failure, as noted above, of either party to exercise restraint.
FWIW, I'm completely neutral here...my only interest is in establishing where WP:NPOV can be found. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is all i want to. Thats why i kept removing the part about Sharons visit. It is an opinion not a fact.Ucscottb4u 02:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato[edit]

I removed an entry that stated "1820 - The tomato is publicly proven safe when Robert Johnson eats a bushel (24 kg) of tomatoes in Salem, Massachusetts." According to the tomato page, the story was concocted in the mid 20th century and there is scant evidence the event actually occurred. Bo Lawler 28Sep06

Notability of Holidays[edit]

I added Ask a Stupid Question Day, which is apparently a real holiday with its own Wikipedia page, to "Holidays and observances", but it was removed because it was "not notable". Now, I understand why "Events" have to be notable, but there isn't any notability standard on "Births" -- anyone with a Wikipedia article and a birth date can get in. It seems to me that "Holidays and observances" should use the same test as "Births" -- if the holiday is notable enough to get its own Wikipedia article (and note that no one has even challenged the Ask a Stupid Question Day article), it should be allowed onto the date page... Shadzane (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DAYS and WP:DOY discuss observances. It is in the spirit of the project that observances should be limited to those that are widely and regularly celebrated. Any fabricated holiday that is mentioned in a couple of sources could feasibly get an article, but most of those would not be widely observed and recognizable by most readers. Much like births and deaths, being the subject of an article is a minimum requirement. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell from looking at the date articles, in Births & Deaths being the subject of an article isn't just a minimum requirement, it's the only requirement. But I did read WP:DAYS, and Holidays are held to a slightly higher standard, so I see your point. But please stop referring to "fabricated holidays" -- all holidays are fabricated (made up) by someone. The difference between successful holidays and unsuccessful ones is how many other people have agreed with the holiday's fabricator that the holiday is worthy of celebration. Shadzane (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However notable ASQD might be to the American school community, it's not global by any stretch of the imagination. Also, the article's sources are not of a 'reliable' enough nature. So how has the entry stood here for so long? Bjenks (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's back again. In the absence of criteria for this page that would allow such a thing, I see no reason it should be here. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on September 28. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom from hunger day[edit]

good idea, but seems to have died out. Does it still exist? Gov't supports?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_28&oldid=1088446125"