Talk:January 15

message: It is said in the article on Joan of Arc that her legendary birthdate is January 6, but this cannot be ascertained. On January 6 this is correctly noted. So what is her birth doing on January 15? (Which is coincidentially my birthday :P)
:This is the first time I've heard January 15 listed as Joan of Arc's possible date of birth. I had heard January 6 — though I dismiss it as unlikely for reasons unrelated to the rest of the month. I wonder if whoever added it had a source (and if so, what it is).  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 16:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''My birthday is January 15!  Why am I not on here?'''== Joan of Arc == 

message: Plane crashes happen every day and most are not globally notable.  This event is the top of the news because it happened today.  It is impossible to know if this event will be globally notable for the long term.  Only if this event leads to specific changes in air traffic regulations will it be notable.  Let's give it some time to see what the global reaction to this particular crash is.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to disagree here somewhat. A major plane crash in which no-one is killed--in the middle of a major city, no less--is extraordinarily unusual. If the plane had merely slid off the runway on take-off that would be a different story, but this particular story has many unusual elements. (My own favourite, albeit utterly unrelated to anything being discussed here, is from the New York Times story: 'In addition, [pilot Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger] is a visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley’s Center for Catastrophic Risk Management.' Looks as if he has material for his next paper.) --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It may turn out to be notable.  My knee-jerk reaction is usually to say that anything that happened today is not yet historically significant - mostly because it isn't really history - there's no way to tell.  Most events cannot be judged as long term globally notable until enough time has passed for the event to be evaluated in an historical context.  I guess we could look at it by asking the question when was the last successful water landing of a commercial aircraft?  That doesn't happen every day.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 03:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

text: This crash, albeit notable per se, it is not as important as the announcement from NASA that methane exists on Mars. Someone decided to delete this EVENT, though. Way to go boys!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.26.129.5 (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiosity: have you read the whole NASA announcement? even they admit that methane has first been detected on mars in 2003 and it can be of geological origin. Lectonar (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiosity, why did you deleted that post entirely, instead of changing it? You know, the political corectness doesn't have a place when dealing with such matters, regardless how staunch its supporters are. Please, leave the mention of this event where it belongs, some people might be interested more in it than in the crash and I think you should respect them. I am fairly certain they outnumber by far those interested by minor events in history. Thanks for nothing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.26.129.5 (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

text: No problem leaving it there now, although your point of view could be contested. Lectonar (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing: the methane has been detected in 2003 as you mention, but "The team found methane in the Martian atmosphere by carefully observing the planet --throughout several Mars years--[...]" AND "[...]a paper describing this research that will appear in Science Express on Thursday."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.26.129.5 (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: US Airways crash

message: Right, I’m confused.
Believe it or not, I was trying to write a quiz for my local paper: and THOUGHT I’d hit an idea theme, when I noticed that the Coca Cola Co had apparently been incorporated — under its original name of ‘The Pemberton Medicine Company’ — on 15th January, 1889.
But couldn’t find any reference to the dat on Wikipedia’s entry on either the companyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coca-Cola_Company or the drinkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola#19th_century_historical_origins.
Is there ANY way of getting this cleaned up: so that the correct, definite, date shows up in both entries, and on the relevant ‘On This Day’ page?
Cheers, all!
Cuddy2977 (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coca Cola Co: What a Lot Of C’s! 

message: The entry here describes him as Greek-Turkish, but the introduction of Nâzım Hikmet describes him as Turkish-Polish. (There's a citation for the claim he held Polish citizenship but the source is in Polish and was published by "Polish Section of the Communist International (Stalinowsko-Hodżystowskiej)".) —71.105.243.101 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nâzım Hikmet (Births, 1902)