Talk:February 10

message: Is "midget" an acceptable term?  -- Zoe
:I dunno. What other term would you suggest? I for one done know what medical condition the listed people had - midget is a catchall. --mav
::I only vaguely remember hearing "midget" is considered offensive, "dwarf" is okay, and "little person" is what they prefer to be called.  But I may be totally wrong.  -- Zoe
::Medically, Tom Thumb & wife were achondroplastic dwarfs. I think they were billed by Barnum as "midgets" ("Midget shows" may be why the term is considered impolitic these days). -- Someone else 05:43 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)
:I believe there is a difference between midgets and dwarves, though. A midget is just a smaller version of a "normal" sized person. Everything is proportioned to their size: e.g. If 6 foot tall man's stomach is 10 inches in diameter (just a guess), then a 3 foot midget's stomach will be 5 inches in diameter, thus equally proportioned. A dwarf, however, will have the same size stomach as some one of normal height. That is why some dwarves have the appearance of pudgyness (is that a word), because all of their organs are normal sized, but their body isn't.
Yes "midget" is a derogatory term it is the equivalent of calling an African American the "N" word.  Vjayiscool 17:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midget 

message: I'm confused; March 29 is also listed on Wikipedia as being the liturgical feast of Blessed Hugo.  Does Blessed Hugo have two feasts? Geoffrey.landis 15:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blessed Hugo? 

message: Is this appropriate? It clarifies the confusion over "What is happening on February 10th" that is all over the internet. Should possibly be allowed until after the date... Then Removed.
"2008 - World protest over the Cult of Scientology. Date chosen because it marks the anniversary of the death of Lisa McPherson."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.80.200.138 (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just followed up on your talk page.  In brief: I reverted your edit due to NPOV and notability issues.  If the event turns out to receive significant coverage in reliable sources, it would not be a problem to re-add a (more neutral) listing. BlckKnght (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Only after the impact of the protest is known can the global notability of the event be established.  Please wait until the world has a chance to react to it before adding it as a notable event.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is now clearly evident that discussion on this topic is not going to take place.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 03:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There has been significant news coverage of this, and it was a worldwide event. Notable sources include various news companies, including the BBC. There is also a ton of footage on youtube DaveChem (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be a lot of coverage of this but that doesn't mean its a notable event.  From what I have read it was just a lot of people gathering at various locations expressing their views.  Grouf(talk • contribs) 15:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A lot of people gathering at various locations expressing their views is just the definition of a (peaceful) protest. What are the criteria for notability of a protest? I do not know, but I feel that whatever they are, yesterday's event probably meets them. Pythian Habenero (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: As far as I can tell, it didn't make the news at all in the US.  Not CNN, FOX, MSNBC, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc.  If something doesn't get mentioned in any news media, it can't be globally notable.  Even if it did get mentioned that would only make it newsworthy, not notable.  It would need to have some broad long-term impact to be considered globally notable.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Made the news in Canada: http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/302118 Also got on the CBC, I believe, but I don't have a Youtube link handy. Regardless, what exactly is non-notable about a worldwide protest taking place over a day in fourteen countries and I-don't-remember-how-many cities? I would consider it a failing for Wikipedia not to have at least a brief explanation of this subject. Pythian Habenero (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGVrcfX4TmY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5GaTqSZlrY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR28TpYtizk
I think the people on Wikipedia trying to claim the day of action on February 10th not being covered in international news or not being a major event are likely posting from computers with IPs belonging to a Scientology computer.
Obviously, it did make headlines. It was global. Why isn't there at least a sentence mentioning it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.39.4 (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The event is covered in Project Chanology.  When an argument can be made that this particular event will be remembered and talked about in 10 years, then we can talk global, long-term notability.    If the Church of Scientology collapses because of this, then we can talk.  If it is completely out of the news in a week, it will be forgotten and will not belong here.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At what point does this become notable? People are still talking about it over a month later. If anything, it has gained more media attention and spawned more protests. Is there a wikipedia policy on how long something has to be around for to gain notability? Doesn't being covered by just about every major news source count at all? fintler (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: This event had no impact.  7000 people protesting worldwide with no impact on the subject is not notable.  This will be forgotten.  Media attention does not make something notable.  The more recent protest that this event 'spawned' had a lower turnout (according to cited sources) than the first and therefore it is a non-issue.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Wide Scientology protest 

message: After alot of looking around on the Internet, there seems to be some controversy over who created and "delivered" the first singing telegram, and when it occured. I've found two references to Postal Telegraph having been the first to introduce them, both being news articles:
The Singing Telegram at 50
The Singing Telegram at 75Both aticles express some skepticism as to Postal Telegraph's claim of being first. I found a good deal of reference suggesting George P. Oslin is credited with the idea and introduction on July 28, 1933. Unless someone can provide definitive evidence as to Postal Telegraph being first, I will remove the event from this page shortly. Kentholke (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Events: 1933 - Singing Telegram? 

message: Folks don't forget that when adding links to ships there are some useful templates available to do the grunt work for you: ,  and  to name but three. – ukexpat (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship's name templates 

message: Vernor Vinge's article says his bday is Oct 2, 1944, I'm confused why it was added it back by bigpoliticsfan Kap 7 (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vernor Vinge 

message: A period is missing at the end of these sentences: "In front of the high altar of Greyfriars Church in Dumfries, Robert the Bruce murders John Comyn sparking the revolution in the Wars of Scottish Independence" and "British defeat Sikhs in final battle of the war" 98.210.124.96 (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2019