Talk:March 5/Archive 1

Archive 1

Three-headed frog

• 2004 - A three-headed frog is found in Weston-super-Mare, England

I was about to delete this strange entry, then I found this BBC news article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/3534361.stm

So I guess it's legit'. Hmmm... -- PFHLai 08:57, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Instances of mutant animals are not important international events, hence they should not be on Day or Year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Pope Clement VIII

his entry says he died on the 3rd not the 5th71.65.34.160 01:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis

Mufka, just in case you meant here... I (Algis Kuliukas) included the anniversary of the Hardy's speech because it signals the start of what has become known as the "aquatic ape hypothesis", a controversial but plausible hypothesis of human evolution. For those interested in human evolution who are open minded enough to wonder if moving through water might have effected our phenotype it marks a significant day - when the orthodox 'savannah theory' began to be challenged. Please don't remove it again unless you have good justification for doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgisKuliukas (talk • contribs) 05:40, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for what to include are at Wikipedia:Notability on a global scale over time. This particular event doesn't seem to fit any of these criteria for inclusion. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Also of note is that there is nothing in the article supporting the date of March 5. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rick Block's comment... surely this is a matter of opinion. Shouldn't major new ideas also be included on that list? In the field of human evolution this date marks a significant landmark after which a new way of thinking about human evolution was possible. Do we have to wait until the idea is orthodoxy (a rather unlikely phenomenon in anthropology) before it can be noted? I note that there are many other entries which should, by strict adoption of that defintion, also be removed. On 5th March alone, just look at the entries for 1689, 1848, 1894, 1916, 1955, 1964. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be open and inclusive? Re: Mukas's comment... the date is now included in the web page as it should be. The page before suggested that the origin of the idea was rather vague when it clearly isn't, at least in the English language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgisKuliukas (talk • contribs) 15:21, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Algis, clearly you are an academic and have some vested interest in this topic and it is certainly more important to you than most people. (this is no insult) Talking you out of the global notability and applicability for its entry in a Wikicalendar article (which has different requirements than regular Wiki articles) would be an exercise in futility. I won't remove it again so long as when I check the issue of New Scientist tomorrow, it has the date of March 5 mentioned explicitly. Fair enough? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, Mufka, thanks. The New Scientist article (written by Sir Alister Hardy) does cite that date in the first sentence of the article. I'm sorry if I have come across a little fanatical about this. I am passionate about it, to be sure. I do think it's a key date though and whatever one thinks about the idea itself, these landmarks in human thinking should also be recorded in resources like Wikipedia because they place other ideas in a broader context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgisKuliukas (talk • contribs) 22:57, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I agree that major new ideas should be included in the list, and that whether something meets this criteria is to some extent a matter of opinion. On the other hand, Wikipedia is most definitely not "supposed to be open and inclusive" - it's an encyclopedia that's openly editable by both specialists and non-specialists. Something that a specialist considers major and new is perfectly appropriate for mentioning on pages related to that specialty - but this is not such a page. In the category of major new ideas on these pages I'd expect Einstein's theory of relativity, Darwin's theory of evolution, publication of the Communist Manifesto, and other globally significant MAJOR new ideas. Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's last theorem (which is included on October 26) is not so clear to me. An unaccepted theory in any field strikes me as a something that pretty clearly does not meet this criteria. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What about when the 2nd Earl of Nottingham was named secretary of state for Northern Ireland, when Thomas Townshend, 1st Viscount Sydney was named President of the Board of Trade, when the Spanish football club Real Club Deportivo Mallorca was founded, when the Jharkhand Party was founded in India, when Elvis Presley appeared on television for the first time, when Udo Jürgens won the eleventh Eurovision Song Contest for Austria, when Donald DeFreeze, future Symbionese Liberation Army leader, escaped from Vacaville Prison or when the Ottawa Senators and Philadelphia Flyers of the NHL set a record for most penalty minutes in one game with 419 - presumably, those meet with your approval. Just because you do not think the idea that the human phenotype may have been influenced by life on the coasts is "MAJOR" is, I think, your problem. To those of us interested in human evolution, I humbly suggest that it is very important and much more important than those I listed above and many more besides. This clearly is a matter of opinion but when someone like me who is doing a PhD on this subject suggests it, I dare suggest, that it is informed opinion. Wikipedia should welcome informed opinion whenever posible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgisKuliukas (talk • contribs) 07:59, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to quickly respond to a the common argument that usually starts with "what about that other entry" - there are only so many hours in a day. I've been blowing 1,000 edits a month on cleaning up Wikicalendar articles and there are many, many entries that are not notable. The newest additions are what shows up in the watchlist so those get attention first. By the way, you must understand that if other editors reach a consensus that your event is not notable and should be excluded, you must abide by that consensus or face a block. I'm not saying there is a consensus, but please be aware of that. Nothing has a 'right' to be here. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 12:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as Mufka says there are only so many hours in a day. I didn't comment on your original list of "what about these" since they aren't the topic of this discussion. Indeed, most of them don't meet my criteria so if you're wanting to include aquatic ape hypothesis only because it's more important than these others please rethink your position. Are you saying your well informed opinion is that the publication of this theory is of comparable importance to Darwin's, or Einstein's, or Watson/Crick's paper on the double helix? Wikipedia does welcome informed opinion, but also cautions specialists about writing in their own field (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). If you think this theory is of comparable importance to the ones I've mentioned, I suggest (and I mean no disrespect) that your judgment about this particular topic may not be entirely neutral. BTW - in case this is a source of confusion there is no intent that links to this date from articles have corresponding outbound links from this page. Dates are linked within articles so they can be presented in accordance with preference settings available to logged in users. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

While confirming the date in the article (which is only of minor importance at this point), I found it interesting that the author in closing stated that "my thesis is, of course, only a speculation". And what about Anaximander? He "proposed" (dare I say speculated) "that mankind had sprung from an aquatic species of animal." He predates Hardy. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 16:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

To Mufka: I appreciate that there is only a limited amount of time to edit these pages and that some oddities may slip through the net. But if you are going to exclude my proposed anniversary on 5th March, I think you should also exclude the ones I listed and some more besides. How long does it take to select a sentence and press <delete>? All I'm arguing for is for fair play all round. By the way, who made you an editor of this page and how does one get that position? On Anaximander - very intersting. I'll look into it!

To Rick: No, I'm not suggesting that this publication is of equal importance to the major scientific landmarks you listed. I'm suggesting that in the field of human evolution it's a pretty significant one, that's all. I think wikipedia and information sources like it should have a higher percentage science content and this kind of inclusion, it seems to me, is exactly the sort of thing that should be encouraged to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgisKuliukas (talk • contribs) 06:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Józef Marcinkiewicz

This birth seems to be duplicated in march 30th - the date given in the article for this person:

1910 - Józef Marcinkiewicz, Polish mathematician (d. 1940) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.67.199 (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this. I've deleted the entry here. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Feast of Saint Olivia

Unless I've missed something, The Feast of St. Olivia is celebrated on 10 June (see her wiki article) and it's marked on the calendar for 10 June. Why is it also marked on today's date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.95.180.120 (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

March 5th also start California coast of whale watching

March 5th marks thwe start of the California Gray Whales migration to birthing area Sea of Cortez,Baja California ,Mexico!LAPPLAD (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not important enough to be on this article; many species of animal migrate regularly. Jim Michael (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

1933 Great Depression entry - possible error

The entry "1933 – Great Depression: President Franklin D. Roosevelt declares a "bank holiday", closing all U.S. banks and freezing all financial transactions." is on this page (March 5th). However, when clicking the link bank holiday, the Emergency Banking Act page states "On March 6 he declared a four-day national banking holiday that kept all banks shut until Congress could act."

Later in the article, it states "According to William L. Silber: "The Emergency Banking Act of 1933, passed by Congress on March 9, 1933, three days after FDR declared a nationwide bank holiday", which would also indicate a March 6th date.

Doing further research, I found the following reference that also indicates a March 6th date: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/meltzer/awarec69.pdf on page 362. The quote there is "Many things were discussed, but the only agreement reached was to recommend the banking holiday. A draft of the previously prepared proclamation was used as a basis for the one to be signed by the President, and with a few minor changes was approved by Cummings and signed by the President late at night on March 6, 1933."

I suggest that, unless there is overwhelming contrary evidence that the March 5th date is correct, this entry be moved to the March 6th page.

Respectfully, --MyRandomUserName (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)