Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/May 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Today's featured article for May 20, 2024

City of Champaign v. Madigan is a 2013 case decided by the Illinois Appellate Court, ruling that messages sent and received by elected officials during a city council meeting and pertaining to public business are public records subject to disclosure, even when stored on personal electronic devices. It was the first court ruling in Illinois to hold that private messages were subject to disclosure under the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The case addressed a public records request from a reporter for The News-Gazette in Champaign, Illinois, who observed city council members and the mayor using their personal electronic devices to send messages during a city council meeting. City officials denied the reporter's request; the case eventually reached the Appellate Court, which held that public officials have to disclose their records, even if they are stored on a personal electronic device or account, but only when acting as a public body, such as during a council meeting. (Full article...)

Recently featured:

view – talk – edit – history – watch

Picture of the day for May 20, 2024

The featured picture for this day has not yet been chosen.

In general, pictures of the day are scheduled in order of promotion to featured status. See Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines for full guidelines.

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day[edit]

  • 2010 – Everybody Draw Mohammed Day started as a poster published on the Internet on April 20, 2010 protesting the censoring of an episode of South Park depicting the prophet Mohammed. Encouraging people everywhere to make their own drawing of Muhammad on May 20 the grassroots movement has gained widespread support as well as criticism even before the set date.

I have never proposed a change to this section before, and I assume this nomination is unusual in several respects. I still think this would be an interesting marker to present if the regulars can accept it. There is, I realize, also an issue with length, but I have suggested what I see is necessary and am open to deliberations. __meco (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a bit early to describe it as an "anniversary", surely? ;-) I'd be happier seeing it in WP:ITN, to be honest. TFOWRpropaganda 14:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, but it's a designated "day" as good as any, and say, if the UN instituted an annual "LGBT Families Day" or whatever, I don't think the issue would be that it hadn't yet had time to become an anniversary.. __meco (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but if the UN were to institute such a day, it would recur. So, partly my issue is that this isn't an anniversary yet, and partly because we don't yet know whether the event will recur - this may be a one-off. What were your thoughts on WP:ITN, by the way? Given the controversy, I'd be fairly convinced that this will make ITN ;-) TFOWRpropaganda 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is not an anniversary yet, and it is likely that this event will only be of passing historical importance. In other words, OTD is not for current events that could not make the cut on ITN. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this year - OTD isn't really the place for (so-far) one-time events. Those are more suited to ITN. If there's significant coverage of the event when May 20 rolls around next year then sure, I'd be up for supporting inclusion, despite the likelyhood of irritating Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. And, I forget, did Boobquake make it onto ITN? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it was DYK.  f o x  09:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose OTD events from the current year (i.e. happening now). Take it to WP:ITN/C instead. Modest Genius talk 22:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, no Not an anniversary. A similar type of query came up on the UK election day. Why some regular editors still don't realize that OTD only features events in the past -- i.e. anniversaries -- is beyond me. And calling this an "observance" or "holiday" (to say nothing of a "holy day") would be a stretch, so it's probably not going in the first line next to the date either. -- tariqabjotu 23:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah. Per above, really, but this does look like a bit of an attempt to see how far WP:CENSOR will stretch...  f o x  09:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean? How does this stretch Wikipedia's existing practices? __meco (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Well, from my perspective, it looks like you're trying to make a point. -- tariqabjotu 15:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no clue what you mean, and you don't do much to make is apparent either. __meco (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You have no clue what I mean? Oh really? You essentially stated the point last month, when you nominated the South Park debacle for ITN...

    The Islamist onslaught on the core Western value of freedom of expression now has taken its latest toll as perhaps the least authority-conforming bastion also cowers to their terror strategy. I think South Park constitutes a milestone in this respect, and a very sad one indeed, one that warrants general attention.

    Replace South Park with "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" and switch a few words around and that's the point I'm talking about. -- tariqabjotu 16:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the matter isn't notable is will not get posted. I see no reason to recuse myself from nominating a story on a cause which I happen to support. Don't you also occupy yourself to a large degree with issues that interest you? What your comments indicate is that my suggestions are frivolous. I don't think that's called for. And your initial reference to WP:CENSOR still confounds me. __meco (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I never expected you to agree with opposition; if you did, surely you wouldn't have proposed this in the first place. I can imagine why Fox mentioned WP:CENSOR, but I never used it myself. -- tariqabjotu 16:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I have been attributing the above post by User:Fox to you. I've been expecting you to clarify what that user meant which is obviously the wrong address. __meco (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With Pakistan now blocking Facebook over this thing, I have found the time right for nominating the issue at ITN. __meco (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A much more appropriate venue for this. It will be an uphill battle, I imagine, so good luck. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2012 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 07:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 notes[edit]

NOTE: WP:Today's article for improvement removed from Main Page as of today.

—howcheng {chat} 06:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 06:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 11:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 07:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 09:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 16:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 17:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 18:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 16:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 notes[edit]

—howcheng {chat} 08:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries/May_20&oldid=1137453726"