Talk:July 5

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.
This box: viewtalkedit
Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page
Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box.

July 5: Fifth of July in New York

Juvénal Habyarimana
Juvénal Habyarimana
More anniversaries:


Does anyone know whether Newton's Principia was published on July 5, July 6, or some other day of 1687? Vicki Rosenzweig

Correct pub date is Jul 5 1687 (Reference: R.S.Westfall, Never at Rest p.468 ISBN 0-521-27435-4) Ancheta Wis 18:22, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Joseph King[edit]

Please verify that the correct year of birth for Joseph King is 1989. It seems a little off to me as his page on Wiki states that he went to Stanford and there formed the band Canvas in 1999, making him a college student when he was 10. Missjessica254 15:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Czechia in UN 2016[edit]

  • 2016 – The United Nations recognizes the shortened name of Czechia for the Czech Republic.

I added this and 1 person removed because he/she didn't think it was notable. I say it as notable as a soccer game in 2015 and tall building in 2013. It shows the international community recognizing the official English short form name for CR. Also I note that the user removed the soccer game as well and someone else put that back in and no removed it again. I realize i am speaking to a brickwall on this but what the heck humor me long live Czechia ! Czechia2016 (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might help if this important event was added to the page 2016 in the Czech Republic. Deb (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If i add it there will it just be deleted? Czechia2016 (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
okay added it Czechia2016 (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

and silence Czechia2016 (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The adoption of a short name by a country is borderline significant. I don't object too strongly to having it noted, but you've already done that in the May 2 article, May 2 being the date on which that adoption occurred. Now you're also asking to note it here, for the date that the UN updated its databases to reflect the name. That doesn't make sense; if the event is to be noted anywhere, it should be on the date it occurred, not the date it was recorded by another body.
I'm not convinced it even belongs in the May 2 article, frankly, but I don't feel strongly enough to revert that.
On your talk page, you stated:
Why doesn't this apply to the other guy? What give him the right to revert twice? or you
Well, in a nutshell, you are the one proposing the change; so it's your responsibility to seek consensus forthat change in the event of a disagreement.
Let's clarify this: no one, other than you, is seeking to list the UN update of its record here. So far, you appear to be the only person who thinks it's appropriate. You boldly added it, which is fine; then your edit was reverted by user:Rlbarton, which is also fine. Editors don't always agree. Now at this point, it is incumbent on the person proposing the change (and that's you), to take it to talk and seek a consensus. See WP:BRD, which stands for "Bold, Revert, Discuss". You were Bold, you were Reverted, but you skipped the Discuss part. And that's what the problem is here. Instead, you began edit-warring, and re-added it with an edit summary that some might consider snarky. Your justification was WP:WAX, comparing it to another borderline-notable soccer game. First, that's a very poor argument for the reasons described on that page. But, in any case, Rlbarton addressed your issue by removing both events. Maybe he could have gone a step further and started the talk discussion that was your responsibility to start, but I can't really fault him; I think his comment was clear enough in context. But still, you just reinserted it, with no additional explanation. At this point, you're edit-warring in earnest.
Then, when I removed it with an edit summary agreeing with Rlbarton, and adding the additional distinction about the May 2 determination, you continued your edit war.
This is not how you're supposed to edit on Wikipedia.
Look, Czechia2016, you obviously have strong feelings about the naming of the country. you've even based your username on it. But Wikipedia does not operate on the basis of which editors have the strongest feelings about an issue; or which ones are the most persistent in making changes in the face of opposition. That's a quick way to get blocked.
Also, you need to be aware that all the editors here are voluntary, and this isn't a job for anyone. Your comment that the re-addition of soccer game was not instantly reverted within a few hours, and your comment "and silence" suggest that you think folks are standing by to respond to your every comment and edit. That's not the case. A lot of us in the US were probably enjoying our July 4 holiday. I know I was. Editing Wikipedia was pretty far down the list of things I wanted to work on. TJRC (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is my problem in general with wikipedia. One person adds something that is true, that another person doesn't like or thinks it is important and removes it and it becomes the person who added it responsibility to justify it and not the person who removed and then someone else comes along (you) and backs up the person, maybe you are friends for all I know. So far we have 1 person for adding this (me) and 2 (you and Rlbarton) against it. My point about the soccer game it was probably added sometime ago and was probably only removed now because i mention it, but then it gets added back by a 3rd party and no one (you I guess) feels the need to uphold the removal of it in the first place. There sure a lot of events on July 5 and yet I don't see a lot of discussion on this page, were all those additions discussed on this talk page? probably not it just no one cared enough to removed them or if they were removed the people who added them either never checked again or didn't really care. PS don't assume someone is from Czechia just because of their user name Czechia2016 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, consensus is a central tenet of Wikipedia; and if you're not comfortable operating within that, I can see why you'd be frustrated. But I don't see that changing any time soon.
For what it's worth, I don't know User:Rlbarton. Based on his edit history, he appears to be a diligent editor working a lot on quality control of date articles like this one.
And I don't see anyone assuming you're from Czechia. TJRC (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]