Talk:November 3/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Removed:

• 1394 - Charles VI of France expels the Jews
• 1839 - Beginning of the first Opium War.
• 1935 - George II of Greece regains his throne.
• 1955 - Australia gains control of the Cocos Islands.
• 1970 - Salvador Allende inaugurated as President of Chile.

Could not be confirmed outside of 'this day in history'-type websites (very bad source). --mav 04:08, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Moved:

• 1888 - Jack the Ripper kills Mary Jane Kelly, his last known victim.

Nope. Happened on November 9. --mav 04:08, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I checked on (*1935 - George II of Greece regains his throne. ): its valid as per "Queen Victoria's Descendants" by Marlene Eilers, p. 131. "Succeeded to the Greek throne upon his father's abdication, Sep 27, 1922, but left Greece Mar 24, 1924. Restored to the throne, Nov 3, 1935, but again left Greece following the German invasion, Apr 23, 1941. Recalled to the throne Sept 28, 1946." -- Someone else 04:26, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Cool - thanks for checking that! I'll put it back in. --mav 05:07, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 3 marginal events

• Copied from Gamaliel's talk page

Gamaliel,

Here's my rationale for the deletions I made.

Verde's opera: somewhat notable, but not a sufficiently earthshaking event to me - If we were to extend the 'be liberal' idea, we could put every premiere of every opera ever made into the calendar. We just ballooned the size of each day, month, and year entry. Where does it end? I think we have one or more significant events in music groups to handle things like this.

US Presidental elections - Pretty common events, and most aren't especially notable. It's the things the US presidents do that make them notable. Significant actions make my cut, but not just the election of a new one. If we get liberal with our entries, every regime change in every nation makes the cut.

Other entertainment entries - Again, there is no end to the insignificant trivia you will bloat the day, month, and year entries with if you don't put some limits on it. Every Sinatra movie ever made? Every video game ever released? Every time a soap opera kills off a minor character? Yuk.

I appreciate your sentiments, but these entries are only as valuable as their content. If they get too unwieldy, with entries like "Sonic the Hedgehog's ears change color on this day in the history of video games", no one will wade through them.

I drew a line - I've been drawing them for awhile and, short of vanity entries, you're the first person to object. It's time for a dialog on how do we clean up these date entries. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to present my personal opinion. Catbar (Brian Rock) 12:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Cross

Daniel Cross, British footballer is listed as being born Nov 3rd, 1990 whereas the his wikipedia page lists his birth date as March 30, 1983. I assume that the later is correct unless British football players are allowed to play when 16. I don't care to delete it (because without actually researching it, I don't know), but somebody might want to.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The latter date is correct, and he's Australian, not British. Jim Michael (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Salang Tunnel fire

@Deb: You are in this project space more than me, was hoping to get your thoughts on this. The Salang Tunnel fire shows that initial reports said 2,000 people, but later Soviet records indicated around 150. A recent NPR article says at least 150 (by some estimates). The main Salang Tunnel#1982 fire article's section on it says 176. Is there a good way to phrase this/fix this for this list? Kees08 (Talk) 07:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: I think I would say something like "Initial reports of the number of fatalities vary between 150 and 2000", then you can correct it later when something more accurate emerges. You must have a reliable source before you can include it, and I would concentrate on the English-language press. Deb (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Deb: It happened in 1982 and is already on this page, I don't think we'll get any new sources :). Seems like 'at least 150 by some estimates' and using the NPR source would be the best way to keep it in the list, otherwise we can remove it. Kees08 (Talk) 15:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08:, sorry, that was stupid of me. What about this source, published long after the event, which just says "more than 170"? Deb (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Deb: I think that might be (slightly) in the middle of the reported ranges, according to NFPA at least (they are usually pretty good). Is something with death tolls this widely varying appropriate for this type of article? If so, I could either say 'at least 150', '150-2000', or try the 170 number (170 seems to be the most commonly reported). Kees08 (Talk) 16:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it is fine to include it, and as long as it's clear that no one knows the exact number and you have a reference of some kind, then it doesn't really matter which of those you fix on. Deb (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)