Talk:July 21

Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page

Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box.

July 21: Belgian National Day (1831) Yuen Long attack 365 – A large earthquake occurred near Crete, triggering a tsunami, and causing widespread destruction around the eastern Mediterranean region. 905 – Louis III, Holy Roman Emperor, was captured and blinded during his attempt to restore Carolingian power over Italy by King Berengar I. 1918 – World War I: An Imperial German Navy U-boat opened fire on a small convoy of barges and defending aircraft near the American town of Orleans, Massachusetts. 2013 – Nour Ahmad Nikbakht, an Iranian diplomat in Yemen, was kidnapped by al-Qaeda militants and held hostage for the next two years. 2019 – People returning from anti-extradition bill protests were attacked (pictured) by suspected triad members in Yuen Long, Hong Kong, leaving 45 people injured. Geoffrey I, Count of Anjou (d. 987) Albert Luthuli (d. 1967) Ruth St. Denis (d. 1968) Anthony Annan (b. 1986) More anniversaries: July 20 July 21 July 22

---

Paloma Faith

Paloma Faith was born on this day. I have looked up many Music artists who fail to be on these lists. This is a huge project which needs to be taken by somebody, and not me. 78.148.244.245 (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

July 21 of a BC Date?

Come on, how can you have a July 21 of a date before the calendar was created? Not to mention which the adjustments to the Gregorian calendar which make it difficult to even suggest that this would've been the date had the calendar been in existance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.126.97 (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

The Romans devised the basis for the modern calendar. July, for example, was named in honor of Julius Caesar, with its successor August after his heir Augustus. Tsunomaru 17:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Where's Hary Potter?

isn't the release of Harry Potter 7 important enough to appear here?

Correct, it isn't important enough. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it will be after the fact when millions of people taking the day off causes the developed world's economies to collapse. Tsunomaru 17:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that Harry Potter has gotten enough attention to be worth putting up on the list.

Yeah. It was so widely read the NYT book folks created a new bestseller list to get Harry Potter off of their main list. All 6 of the released novels are in the top 20 most sold books of all time (Wpedia has a list). It will be the largest opening for a book ever and will remain that way into the forseeable future, probably for a generation. Guns & Roses' debut album release Appetite for Destruction is in the current list of events, and Harry Potter is certainly as important a cultural phenomenon as they were. 128.193.0.6 22:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Ventifact

I added Harry Potter and someone immediately reverted it without comment. I don't have time to learn enough Wiki to call for a vote or article protection. However, on the odd coincidence that the person responsible for the edits even reads the discussion page, I might suggest that if they're such a great Wikipedian that they enlighten us as to why Harry Potter is not important enough to be in the list (especially if we infer standards of entry by the events already present, including Guns n Roses). 128.193.4.98 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Ventifact

The entry could have been deleted for two reasons:

1. It is a future event. Those are considered speculative and aren't allowed. For something to have historical significance, it has to be history.
2. It is a book. It is not globally notable (and just because the world knows about it doesn't make it globally notable).

Take a look here for some help in identifying what is and is not notable for calendar entries. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 23:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I believe the rule from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year is that these pages aren't for future events. So it's not okay to add it now, but come 00:01 June 21st BST, I think it's fair game for inclusion. Actually, a question is if it should be added here, or to July 20... the book is actually coming out at 11:01 July 20 UTC, if I did the time zone math properly.

Mufka, it seems like the release of the new harry potter book will be instantly notable, once it happens. A few quick checks show that there's been more than 2 million pre-orders from Amazon alone, with another 1.2 million from Barnes and Noble. I think a book selling 3 million copies in a day is notable for that alone. — PyTom 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If it breaks a record it might be notable. In that case the entry for the book released in 2005 will need to be removed. The accepted practice is that book releases are not notable for Wikicalendar articles. Any compelling argument will, of course, be evaluated. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 00:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is as good a forum as any for that evaluation. I'd argue that the release of of a book that sells more than, say, 5 million copies on the first day is inherently notable, especially given the huge amount of media coverage that surrounded that first day alone. I believe that Half-Blood Prince is notable by this standard, and Order of the Phoenix and Goblet of Fire might be... the first three books certainly aren't, as they had relatively small first printings.

To put this in perspective, more people bought Half-Blood Prince on the first day than live in New Zealand. — PyTom 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Edited slightly... I always forget Order of the Phoenix. — PyTom 01:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What you say might be true but generally the litmus test is whether the item would still be notable in 50 years. Take a look at WP:RECENT. The intent of these articles is to note historically significant events or events that have a significant cultural impact. Granted there are a lot of entries that do not qualify but we can only take one at a time. Another thing that I think is important is that some types of items simply need to be excluded. Books, especially fiction, is one. The gray area on the topic of notable books would be immense and inclusion would surely result in continuous edit wars. Where is the line drawn? Bestsellers? Bestsellers in certain categories? Oprah's book list? Today's record breaker; what happens to yesterday's? -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 01:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think WP:N is the relevant policy— and I believe that the release of the three most recent Potter books quality. I think the guideline should be that that the release of a work of fiction is notable if the release itself is notable, independent of the work of fiction itself. I think that's the case with this release, and the last three... there are plenty of articles in reliable sources (such as [1]) that speak to the notability of this release, independent of the book. — PyTom 02:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is one important difference between an article and a WikiCalender page. Articles do not have to be globally notable. You can apply WP:N directly to an article. Wikicalendar pages have the added burden of global notability and cultural pertinence. One reason for this is because calendar pages contain very little detail and no references - by design. I guess you could ask this: is anyone going to look at the world differently in 10 years because the Harry Potter book was released on this date? -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm... Well, I think global notability is given, see my reference to the Times of India article. Do I think people will look at the world differently because of it? Well, it certainly changes peoples perceptions of how successful a book can be. I think it's at least as notable as half the stuff on this page.

BTW, I encourage everyone to mind the WP:3RR. Remember, the exception is only for "simple and obvious vandalism", which I think good-faith contributions of content are. — PyTom 07:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

seriously, i think the hp7 release should be on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.142.119 (talk • contribs) 15:01, July 20, 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I think not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion of the HP7 release. It was surely the most famous book release in publishing history and broke numerous records worldwide for book sales. It is a day that many people will remember for years to come, surely just as notable as the entries for 2004 and 2005. Timb66 04:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think it's appropriate, but this last is a plausible reason for inclusion, unlike all the other comments made here. I can't say it's vandalism, so I won't revert for another 3 or 4 hours.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur_Rubin (talk • contribs) 13:46, 24 July 2007

See also [2], a CNN article pointing out the importance of this release to a generation. — PyTom 17:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the release of HP7 is important enough to be listed in the calendar. The sales section of the article on this book summarizes the worldwide reach it had on release day. Lisatwo 15:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Every one on wikipedia hates Harry Potter. Go to Talk:HBP and see the fight I had to make to put Half-Blood Prince on the list. You'll have the same problem here. They'll delete because they can, even though it's wrong. Arry 09:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

the moon landing is wrong

Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon on July 20, not the 21st. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.66.88.225 (talk • contribs).

According to the article, which I believe is correct, they landed on July 20, but didn't exit the LM and walk on the moon until July 21 (UTC). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm coming to this discussion many years later, but the article is now fixed. I expect that there will be those who will want to revert, but our guidance as Wikipedia editors is that what is most important is not what we think or feel. Rather, what takes precedence is what the reliable sources say. In adding July 21 as the date associated with the first ever moonwalk, this fact is now supported by sources from both the United Nations as well as the Guinness Book of World Records. Both are authoritative sources. And so is NASA, of course. When reliable sources are in disagreement, our duty becomes one of bringing that disagreement to light. And that is exactly how the article now reads. Authorities in the US say it happened on July 20. Different authorities around the globe say it happened on the 21st. This is a classic case where NPOV is required. Both sides of the story need to be told clearly.

The next thing to do will be to include this info in the article on July 20 as well. I can take care of that.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

UTC is NOT the same time as it was in the US when they went for their walk. Considering being on Daylight Saving Time, they would have left the LM at 2252 EDT, 1952 PDT, which still seems a bit late, but I was watching it at the time it happened so I won't quibble over an hour or two. It is still a fact that both the landing and walk happened on 20 July in the US and I hope that it got fixed to show that. Just saying the walk started at 0252 UTC on the 21st doesn't explain the whole story! 2600:1700:A9B0:527F:1814:9717:1F33:C4FA (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

I added back on the list the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, as it is now a historical event (see older discussion above) and qualifies for addition according to the guideline. According to it, "dates of completion or premiere of major works of art and architecture recognized on a global scale" are allowed; moreover, "dates that pertain to television programs, movies, books, video games, etc. – this is not notable on a global scale (exceptions include the breaking of world records for sales, etc.)": on its page it is said that the aforementioned book is still the fastest-selling book in history, and thus qualifies. If you have any inquiry or complaint, please contact me by replying to this discussion or via my talk page. -- Angelikfire (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree is it is a premiere of a major work of art, however I added it and it was removed. What are the grounds for NOT including it on this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.145.209 (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to know that too. I have already contacted Rlbarton - the author of the removal - twice, and asked him to elaborate further on the matter, but all I got from them was a "Not a significant world event". I pointed them to this talk page in order to discuss this edit and possibly reach an agreement, but I have seen no collaboration from their part (despite what Wikipedia's guidelines say). I suggest you to get an account and try to ask them yourself. -- Angelikfire (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

New Coldest Temperature

The lowest temperature recorded on Earth may have been logged in Antarctica on Aug. 10, 2010: a reading of 135.8 degrees below zero Fahrenheit (or minus 93.2 degrees Celsius).

That unfathomably frigid temperature reading, taken via NASA satellite, was part of an effort by American scientists to locate the coldest spot on the planet. Turns out, there are a string of extremely cold spots, pockets of unbelievable chill at high elevations in Antarctica.

Researchers at the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported the findings at a news conference Monday during the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting in San Francisco.

They looked at a region of the east Antarctic Plateau and found that temperatures in certain pockets "routinely surpass the record temperature of the previous lowest temperature on record." That was 128.6 degrees below zero Fahrenheit, set at Russia's Vostok Station in Antarctica on July 21, 1983.

There's grumbling, perhaps not surprisingly from Russian quarters. "Minus Credibility?" reads a headline on Moscow-based RT.com.

The head of the Russian Antarctic Expedition logistics center says it is "incorrect" and "unrealistic" to declare this record based on data from a satellite, according to RT.com.

As scientists noted in Monday's presentation, the kinds of low temperatures we're talking about here could be survived by humans -- "for about three minutes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lechner16332 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The temperature recorded in Vostok Station is the lowest temperature recorded in an inhabited land. That is the reason it is retained here; it will be always. The area you are referring to is a remote location. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 04:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of entries

In accordance with the guidelines, I've started weeding the Births section (Deaths are in pretty good shape already) by removing entries for celebrities with 0-4 articles in other languages. Where possible, these have been transferred to the relevant Year in Topic articles. As well as making the lists more manageable, this will help with the globalization effort. Deb (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Belgian National Day

Why has Belgian National Day been removed from the observances listed for this date? —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Deb: Perhaps you could help with this question? Kees08 (Talk) 19:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it is still present. Deb (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Alexander the Great and Erling Haaland?

I tried to edit the births and add Alexander the Great and Erling Haaland, a super-talented Norwegian footballer born in 2000, but it was deleted, for some reason "citing a reliable source" was required, even though their wiki pages state this date of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.22.42 (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Harland & Wolff

User:Palisades1 - for a second time, you have added an entry referring to the "Protestants expel Catholic workers from the Harland and Wolff shipyard". As with my first revert of the entry, your entry needs to have a link to an actual article about this actual event. Simply linking to Harland & Wolff is not sufficient. I doubt that such an article exists, as even the main article only refers to "During the 1920s, Catholic workers were routinely expelled from working in the shipyard" - without even a specific date. Please reply with a reason/article that you feel will fulfil the requirements for keeping this entry. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

As you've failed to reply here or elsewhere, I have reverted your changes. Please follow the guidelines at WP:DAYS if you wish to contribute to this and similar articles. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Belfast Pogrom

This period of communal violence began on 21 July 1920 with the shipyard clearances or expulsions. This one day event (shipyard clearances) is commonly referred to as the Belfast Pogrom and is well documented and referenced in the linked article - Belfast Pogrom. On 21 July 1920 thousands of Belfast shipyard workers were driven from their work with much violence. This one day event deserves to be included on July 21. Here's one reference to a newspaper article that tells of the events of this date and number of workers forced from their jobs and the ensuing violence etc: .Palisades1 (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

References