Jump to content

Talk:September 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This box: view • talk • edit
Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page
Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box.

September 1: Labour Day in Canada and Labor Day in the United States (2025)

Illuminated Guru Granth Sahib folio
Illuminated Guru Granth Sahib folio
More anniversaries:


September 1, 1939

[edit]

Wikipedia policy indicates that no edits are allowed on this topic without discussion therefore I have not made the necessary correction. The entry records that Germany and Russia invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, this is incorrect. While Germany invaded on September 1, Russia did not invade until September 17 [see, Antony Beevor, The Second World War (2012), p. 32; or any standard historical text on WWII]. I suppose September 1 is in the ballpark, and would meet Wikipedia standards but it is otherwise in error. LAWinans (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem

[edit]

What evidence is there that the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed on September 1? -- goatasaur 00:14 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

School

[edit]

Should we add that most schools start their terms this day (in case it's not a weekend)? Patrickov 16:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suppose school starts on different days in different places. Some places have no summer time off, some places are in the middle of winter right now .... -- PFHLai 18:44, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Labor Day

[edit]

I know that suggestions are unwelcome but the following is incorrect: In America, Labor Day is on September 1 --Wetman 08:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Creation of the world in 5509 BC'

[edit]
  • Should this really be listed in the 'events' section. After all, this section should be reserved for events that really did occur, surely. Not fictitious ones derived from religion and/or superstition? If nobody objects I'll move it somewhere else in a few days. Martyn Smith 07:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we should put it in some special place for religion? Anyway, people believed it was true so this is a part of our culture. People should know as much as possible. Igor Skoglund
I'm not sure if the Byzantines actually regarded 1 September 5509 as the date of Creation. Much more common among first millennium Christian historians, including early Byzantine historians like Maximus the Confessor, was to regard 25 March as the date of Creation (at the beginning of the first year in whatever system of year numbering used by that historian). Nevertheless, 1 September was certainly the epoch of the calendar used after the tenth century, that is, the years of the Julian calendar used by the later Byzantine Empire for civil purposes were numbered such that the first year began on 1 September 5509 BC. This method was also used by Russia from the end of the fifteenth century through AD 1699. In AD 1700 it adopted 1 January as the first day of the year and also adopted the Anno Domini era used by Western Europe (between AD 989 and the late fifteenth century Russia used Byzantine numbering from 1 March). Referring to it as an epoch removes all religious connotations—it becomes a simple historical fact. It is already listed as a Creation date in dating Creation, rightly or wrongly. — Joe Kress 10:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect?

[edit]

Since no discussion has occurred on this talk page on the topic for which this article was protected, I suggest that the article be unprotected and the topic in question (1758 founding of a US town) be removed. If discussion on this is required, perhaps this will get the ball rolling. I'd be glad to participate. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be unprotected for that statement right there. The only reason you want it unprotected is to delete something. An admin thought it should remain when it was protected. This page should not be unprotected til everyone can think neutrally. - NeutralHomer T:C 19:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss the item and please Assume good faith on my part. I'd be glad to discuss the notability of the item. The article cannot remain protected forever. Discussion must take place. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have assumed good faith, but User:Calton deletes what he wants. In Virginia history, it was extremely rare that a British Lord would come over for a founding of a town, not alone be apart of helping with it's charter. This was something big in 1758. - NeutralHomer T:C 22:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some reference that places the founding of the town on September 1? -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information given is from the Newtown History Center (where I had ALOT of help from) located at newtownhistorycenter.org. The Newtown History Center is a kinda half independent/half state run history center located in Stephens City. So their information is about as correct as it can be. So, to be technical, the claim is from the State of Virginia, not myself. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the record of the General Assembly of Virginia, the September 1758 session began on September 14. Therefore this event could not have occurred on September 1 so I don't see how it belongs in this article. Further, Thomas Fairfax was also a founding trustee of Winchester in 1752 - this was the same capacity that he had for Stephensburg. I'm trying to understand (earnestly) why the founding of this particular town is globally notable. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was very rare for the British to care about American politics or be involved in them. Now, the Winchester founding, I did not know about. But to have two foundings in 6 years in one county, even more rare. Remember, in about 20 years, it would be the beginning of the American Revolutionary War, so this is big.
As for the September 14th date, I don't know about that. The September 1 date is from the Newtown History Center, which got their information from the state, Colonial Williamsburg, among other places with many double checks. - NeutralHomer T:C 22:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the source provided by Neutralhomer, the entry on this event is not accurate and it should be edited for that reason and probably deleted for lack of notability.
The source states in pertinent part "In September 1758...Lewis Stephens petitioned the colonial government of Virginia in Williamsburg for a town charter...Stephens succeeded in getting an act passed by Virginia’s Colonial General Assembly."
  • If the point by Mufka is correct and the Gen. Assembly of VA did not meet until September 14, this entry does not belong in this article.
  • The above quote from the source provided does not mention Lord Fairfax having any part in the charter, at very least the reference to him should be removed.
The source discusses the involvement of Fairfax in the founding of the town, and it was hardly a voyage to the colonies to found a new community. Fairfax was attempting to claim the land as his own property through an inheritance from his mother and a patent from King James II. These claims were over those of the land holders at the time and embroiled him in court battles. His involvement in local politics was incidental to his land ownership and included a unsuccessful bid to make his town the county seat.
Based on the information from the source, this entry could read: "Sept. 14, 1758- Lewis Stephens's proposal to found Stevensburgh is accepted by the Virginia colonial general assembly." But I would dispute the notability of that event. Jsh726 16:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was that uncommon for a Lord to be interested in colonial politics. Many lords came to the colonies (Lord Baltimore, Lord De La Warr, Lord Botetourt). The only thing I can find interesting about Fairfax was that he made America his home and died there - but I haven't looked into all of the other lords very deeply. As far as the reference for the General Assembly date it is on page 171 of (an old book so I'll try to cite it properly):
  • Hening, William Waller, The Statutes at Large. Vol. 7. Richmond: Franklin Press, 1820.
"At a General Assembly, begun and held at the Capitol, in Williamsburg, on Thursday the fourteenth day of September, in the thirty-second year of the reign of our sovereign lord George II. by the grace of God, of Great-Britain, France, and Ireland, king, defender of the faith, &c. and in the year of our Lord 1758; being the first session of this assembly."
Stephensburg and Leesburg are established at the same time and Winchester is enlarged. Fairfax is one of many trustees of all three towns. This is covered in the above referenced item on pages 234-236 under the heading:
"An Act erecting a town on the land of Lewis Stephens, in the county of Frederick: For enlarging the town of Winchester, and for erecting a town on the land of Nicholas Monor, in the county of Loudoun."
Many more towns were founded in subsequent and previous sessions. Stephensburg was not the first or the last. I feel that it should definitely be removed from this article and I don't believe it is notable for any article. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love that you have these references and don't use them for the Virginia articles. Please use some of these for the Virginia articles as we need much help.
But, living in Virginia and working with the Newtown History Center, located in Stephens City, who got their information from the Frederick County and State of Virginia via the Virginia Historical Society, I tend to go with them. So, Lord Fairfax was here for the foundings of three towns, only ONE charter, Stephens City. I am sorry, but I have to go with the Virginia Historical Society, Frederick County and the Newtown History Center over a book. - NeutralHomer T:C 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have these resources. I went and got them for this discussion. Perhaps I didn't make it clear but what you are disputing is the actual Virginia statute, not what some historian told me or wrote about. The book is the official record of the General Assembly published by an act of the assembly. What better reference could there be? If you want a copy of the book there is one in College Park, MD, Arlington, VA, Shepherdstown, WV and many more in the VA area. I'm afraid that you are mistaken in your assertion that Stephensburg was "chartered" any differently than Leesburg. The same act of the assembly formed them both. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think I am mistaken, as I talked to the historian at the Newtown History Center. They looked at those documents, among others. The founding and charter of the town is celebrated on September 1 and the charter says September 1. So, historian says it is, charter says it is, then it must be September 1. - NeutralHomer T:C 01:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow editors, I have been asked to take an impartial look at the dispute regarding the notability of the founding of Stephensburgh as regards its entry on the day page for September 1.

Looking at the discussion so far it seems that there are these points.

  • Is the date correct.
  • Is the involvement of Thomas Fairfax notable.
  • Is the place in and of itself notable.

The date appears to me to be suffering from the official record not being clear and as a result the 1st has been chosen retrospectively as the official date, but that does not make it the true date of founding. If the founding took place after the granting of a charter by Virginia’s Colonial General Assembly, even if the founding took place on the day the charter was granted and also if the charter was granted on the first day of the assembly the earliest it could have been is the 14th.

The presence of Fairfax or for that matter any Englishman is not a matter of any great note, admittedly he was the only peer resident in colonial America but had been in Virginia since the mid 1730s so perhaps it could be said he was (had the US been a nation at the time) just another American and with a large landholding some 5 million acres it is not surprising that he took an interest in local affairs, as the rich and powerful seem inclined to do.

So to the general notability of the town itself. Is it the oldest, biggest, most powerful, or any other superlative? As far as I can see not; it is the second oldest town in the Shenandoah Valley, and with a population of less than 2000 not large, and not the capital of anywhere. A nice place to live but notable on a global scale over time, no.

Personally I can see no reason that the 1758 September 1 listing is retained. -- Drappel 21:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short of getting a historian to say it, Lords from Britian did not attend nor help in the charter and founding of a town. Only three occasions did this happen, Stephens City is one (Winchester and Leesburg being the other two, from which I have learned). Whether Lord Fairfax was here 20 years or 20 minutes is irrelevant. The fact that he was in Williamsburg for the charter and founding of Stephensburgh (now Stephens City), on September 1, 1758, as the Newtown History Center and the Virginia Historical Society say he was, is notable. - NeutralHomer T:C 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could give you evidence that other Lords did the very same thing but at this point I know it wouldn't matter. In light of your argument, I'm willing to agree that I won't revert the item as long as you concede that what is readily available in history books and the record of the General Assembly of Virginia is not evidence enough to change your belief that what you were told by an historian is absolutely and unquestionably the truth about the matter. I'm only disappointed that I took the time to research the topic to learn the true facts of the case only to find that the facts didn't matter. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some icing for this cake. I emailed with a representative of Newtown History Center today. Below is the text of the response:
The traditional date given in most books for the founding of Stephens City is September 1758. The exact date can be found in the records of the House of Burgesses, which is in Williamsburg.
Please note that the reference that I noted above (at 00:04, 16 July 2007) is the same that this representative pointed me to. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You get the exact date from the House of Burgesses in Williamsburg and we will have our answer. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not understanding me. The House of Burgesses is the General Assembly. The book I quoted is the official record of the House of Burgesses. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you're giving me a migraine. I'll go up to the Newtown History Center and talk with the historian there. She is the one who gave me the September 1 date to begin with and I will have her write it down on paper and get you a copy of that. - NeutralHomer T:C 00:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I shall await your findings. And a written note is not necessary, just a valid and verifiable reference. Remember no original research. We cite books here, not people. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will have them cite their references, but if it is the Virginia Historical Society, I can't help that. But, I think the Virginia Historical Society would be a good enough reference, since it is state-owned and state-run. But I will let you know what I find out. - NeutralHomer T:C 01:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the "Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia: 1758-1761", we are both wrong. On Page 35 of that book, Stephensburgh was chartered and founded on October 3rd, 1758 and Lord Fairfax was only present for that charter and founding and the founding of Leesburg. He helped in the charter and founding of only Stephensburgh. Since this has been found, I am moving the entry to October 3. - NeutralHomer T:C 19:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial, no matter what day you put it on. I've pointed you to the policies, practices, and guidelines regarding entries to these pages, and multiple editors have removed it, to boot. It's gone. --Calton | Talk 20:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Calton, it's not "gone" just because you say it is. When something happens in a colonial state and it only happens THREE times in that state and only THREE times, yeah, it's notable. I have many forms of proof that Thomas Lord Fairfax only helped with the charter of Stephensburgh (later Stephens City) and no other town. He helped with the founding of Stephensburgh and what would be modern-day Leesburg, Virginia and the expansion of Winchester, Virginia, but he was only instrumental in the charter and founding of Stephensburgh. No other Lord from England did this and it was not common practice for Lords to do this. So, yeah, it's notable and way beyond trivial. - NeutralHomer T:C 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Reality Check, Number 237 in a Series: This event is not notable enough for inclusion in Days of the Year pages, since it's not important on a global, national, or even state-wide level. It's not the first of anything, it paved the way for no particular history, it illuminates no larger issue or historical trend, and is of no importance outside of a very small locality. It's objectively non-notable and completely trivial, no matter how you spin it. I've pointed you to numerous precedents, and it's been removed and/or opposed by multiple uninvolved editors: it's your obsession and your obsession alone, however immune you are to actual discussion, and it's going out. Clear? --Calton | Talk 03:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Let's knock these down, shall we?
  • important...state-wide level: Wrong; it is important, because in no other town would a British Lord participate in the charter or founding of a town again....never.
  • It's not the first of anything: Wrong; it is the first (and only) time that a British Lord would help in the founding and charter of a Virginia town and I dare say Colonial US town.
  • it paved the way for no particular history: Wrong, big time; the charter and founding, paved the way for the approaching 300 year history of an American town.
  • is of no importance outside of a very small locality: Wrong again; first, it is over state-wide importance and second, Stephens City is not "very small" by a long shot. Just because 2,500 people to you seems small, live here for a day, it ain't small.
  • I've pointed you to numerous precedents: Wrong; you have cited zero precedents. Unless citing a precedent is deletion.
  • it's been removed and/or opposed by multiple uninvolved editors: Wrong again; just two...you and User:Mufka.
  • it's your obsession: Wrong; unless providing Wikipedia with a extremely rare occasion in Virginia State History is some new obsession.
  • however immune you are to actual discussion: Wrong; I am more than open to actual discussion, you and I, however, have never had an actual discussion without you going on one of your "holier-than-thou, my intelligence knows all" rants of yours.
  • it's going out: Wrong again; it isn't, sorry.
  • Clear?: If us being clear, is that you are wrong on all points, then we actually agree on something.
Now, would you like to continue or is this enough for one night? - NeutralHomer T:C 03:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1982 - Canada adopts a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as part of its Constitution

[edit]

Didn't The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms come into force on April 17, 1982? If anyone knows what happened on September 1, 1982 concerning The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, please leave a note for me on my talk page...thanks. CWPappas 05:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appalchian State defeats Michigan

[edit]

This is notable because a sub division team beat a college power house. It was the biggest audience App State ever had in college football. I also believe people care for college football the same or more than Luxembourg going digital in television, so I belive that should be placed with it for being an important date on september 1st —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.95.117 (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an event of significant notability or importance. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Day that Hogwarts leaves.

[edit]

Could we add a fictional heading to some days, this day included, and state events that happen in fiction. For example today, September 1 is the day the train leaves for Hogwarts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.52.159 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.Days of the yearWikipedia:WikiProject Days of the yearTemplate:WikiProject Days of the yearDays of the year articles
This box: view • talk • edit
Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page
Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box.

September 1: Labour Day in Canada and Labor Day in the United States (2025)

Illuminated Guru Granth Sahib folio
Illuminated Guru Granth Sahib folio
More anniversaries:


September 1, 1939

[edit]

Wikipedia policy indicates that no edits are allowed on this topic without discussion therefore I have not made the necessary correction. The entry records that Germany and Russia invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, this is incorrect. While Germany invaded on September 1, Russia did not invade until September 17 [see, Antony Beevor, The Second World War (2012), p. 32; or any standard historical text on WWII]. I suppose September 1 is in the ballpark, and would meet Wikipedia standards but it is otherwise in error. LAWinans (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem

[edit]

What evidence is there that the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed on September 1? -- goatasaur 00:14 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

School

[edit]

Should we add that most schools start their terms this day (in case it's not a weekend)? Patrickov 16:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suppose school starts on different days in different places. Some places have no summer time off, some places are in the middle of winter right now .... -- PFHLai 18:44, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Labor Day

[edit]

I know that suggestions are unwelcome but the following is incorrect: In America, Labor Day is on September 1 --Wetman 08:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Creation of the world in 5509 BC'

[edit]
  • Should this really be listed in the 'events' section. After all, this section should be reserved for events that really did occur, surely. Not fictitious ones derived from religion and/or superstition? If nobody objects I'll move it somewhere else in a few days. Martyn Smith 07:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we should put it in some special place for religion? Anyway, people believed it was true so this is a part of our culture. People should know as much as possible. Igor Skoglund
I'm not sure if the Byzantines actually regarded 1 September 5509 as the date of Creation. Much more common among first millennium Christian historians, including early Byzantine historians like Maximus the Confessor, was to regard 25 March as the date of Creation (at the beginning of the first year in whatever system of year numbering used by that historian). Nevertheless, 1 September was certainly the epoch of the calendar used after the tenth century, that is, the years of the Julian calendar used by the later Byzantine Empire for civil purposes were numbered such that the first year began on 1 September 5509 BC. This method was also used by Russia from the end of the fifteenth century through AD 1699. In AD 1700 it adopted 1 January as the first day of the year and also adopted the Anno Domini era used by Western Europe (between AD 989 and the late fifteenth century Russia used Byzantine numbering from 1 March). Referring to it as an epoch removes all religious connotations—it becomes a simple historical fact. It is already listed as a Creation date in dating Creation, rightly or wrongly. — Joe Kress 10:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect?

[edit]

Since no discussion has occurred on this talk page on the topic for which this article was protected, I suggest that the article be unprotected and the topic in question (1758 founding of a US town) be removed. If discussion on this is required, perhaps this will get the ball rolling. I'd be glad to participate. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be unprotected for that statement right there. The only reason you want it unprotected is to delete something. An admin thought it should remain when it was protected. This page should not be unprotected til everyone can think neutrally. - NeutralHomer T:C 19:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss the item and please Assume good faith on my part. I'd be glad to discuss the notability of the item. The article cannot remain protected forever. Discussion must take place. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have assumed good faith, but User:Calton deletes what he wants. In Virginia history, it was extremely rare that a British Lord would come over for a founding of a town, not alone be apart of helping with it's charter. This was something big in 1758. - NeutralHomer T:C 22:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some reference that places the founding of the town on September 1? -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information given is from the Newtown History Center (where I had ALOT of help from) located at newtownhistorycenter.org. The Newtown History Center is a kinda half independent/half state run history center located in Stephens City. So their information is about as correct as it can be. So, to be technical, the claim is from the State of Virginia, not myself. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the record of the General Assembly of Virginia, the September 1758 session began on September 14. Therefore this event could not have occurred on September 1 so I don't see how it belongs in this article. Further, Thomas Fairfax was also a founding trustee of Winchester in 1752 - this was the same capacity that he had for Stephensburg. I'm trying to understand (earnestly) why the founding of this particular town is globally notable. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was very rare for the British to care about American politics or be involved in them. Now, the Winchester founding, I did not know about. But to have two foundings in 6 years in one county, even more rare. Remember, in about 20 years, it would be the beginning of the American Revolutionary War, so this is big.
As for the September 14th date, I don't know about that. The September 1 date is from the Newtown History Center, which got their information from the state, Colonial Williamsburg, among other places with many double checks. - NeutralHomer T:C 22:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the source provided by Neutralhomer, the entry on this event is not accurate and it should be edited for that reason and probably deleted for lack of notability.
The source states in pertinent part "In September 1758...Lewis Stephens petitioned the colonial government of Virginia in Williamsburg for a town charter...Stephens succeeded in getting an act passed by Virginia’s Colonial General Assembly."
  • If the point by Mufka is correct and the Gen. Assembly of VA did not meet until September 14, this entry does not belong in this article.
  • The above quote from the source provided does not mention Lord Fairfax having any part in the charter, at very least the reference to him should be removed.
The source discusses the involvement of Fairfax in the founding of the town, and it was hardly a voyage to the colonies to found a new community. Fairfax was attempting to claim the land as his own property through an inheritance from his mother and a patent from King James II. These claims were over those of the land holders at the time and embroiled him in court battles. His involvement in local politics was incidental to his land ownership and included a unsuccessful bid to make his town the county seat.
Based on the information from the source, this entry could read: "Sept. 14, 1758- Lewis Stephens's proposal to found Stevensburgh is accepted by the Virginia colonial general assembly." But I would dispute the notability of that event. Jsh726 16:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was that uncommon for a Lord to be interested in colonial politics. Many lords came to the colonies (Lord Baltimore, Lord De La Warr, Lord Botetourt). The only thing I can find interesting about Fairfax was that he made America his home and died there - but I haven't looked into all of the other lords very deeply. As far as the reference for the General Assembly date it is on page 171 of (an old book so I'll try to cite it properly):
  • Hening, William Waller, The Statutes at Large. Vol. 7. Richmond: Franklin Press, 1820.
"At a General Assembly, begun and held at the Capitol, in Williamsburg, on Thursday the fourteenth day of September, in the thirty-second year of the reign of our sovereign lord George II. by the grace of God, of Great-Britain, France, and Ireland, king, defender of the faith, &c. and in the year of our Lord 1758; being the first session of this assembly."
Stephensburg and Leesburg are established at the same time and Winchester is enlarged. Fairfax is one of many trustees of all three towns. This is covered in the above referenced item on pages 234-236 under the heading:
"An Act erecting a town on the land of Lewis Stephens, in the county of Frederick: For enlarging the town of Winchester, and for erecting a town on the land of Nicholas Monor, in the county of Loudoun."
Many more towns were founded in subsequent and previous sessions. Stephensburg was not the first or the last. I feel that it should definitely be removed from this article and I don't believe it is notable for any article. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love that you have these references and don't use them for the Virginia articles. Please use some of these for the Virginia articles as we need much help.
But, living in Virginia and working with the Newtown History Center, located in Stephens City, who got their information from the Frederick County and State of Virginia via the Virginia Historical Society, I tend to go with them. So, Lord Fairfax was here for the foundings of three towns, only ONE charter, Stephens City. I am sorry, but I have to go with the Virginia Historical Society, Frederick County and the Newtown History Center over a book. - NeutralHomer T:C 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have these resources. I went and got them for this discussion. Perhaps I didn't make it clear but what you are disputing is the actual Virginia statute, not what some historian told me or wrote about. The book is the official record of the General Assembly published by an act of the assembly. What better reference could there be? If you want a copy of the book there is one in College Park, MD, Arlington, VA, Shepherdstown, WV and many more in the VA area. I'm afraid that you are mistaken in your assertion that Stephensburg was "chartered" any differently than Leesburg. The same act of the assembly formed them both. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think I am mistaken, as I talked to the historian at the Newtown History Center. They looked at those documents, among others. The founding and charter of the town is celebrated on September 1 and the charter says September 1. So, historian says it is, charter says it is, then it must be September 1. - NeutralHomer T:C 01:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow editors, I have been asked to take an impartial look at the dispute regarding the notability of the founding of Stephensburgh as regards its entry on the day page for September 1.

Looking at the discussion so far it seems that there are these points.

  • Is the date correct.
  • Is the involvement of Thomas Fairfax notable.
  • Is the place in and of itself notable.

The date appears to me to be suffering from the official record not being clear and as a result the 1st has been chosen retrospectively as the official date, but that does not make it the true date of founding. If the founding took place after the granting of a charter by Virginia’s Colonial General Assembly, even if the founding took place on the day the charter was granted and also if the charter was granted on the first day of the assembly the earliest it could have been is the 14th.

The presence of Fairfax or for that matter any Englishman is not a matter of any great note, admittedly he was the only peer resident in colonial America but had been in Virginia since the mid 1730s so perhaps it could be said he was (had the US been a nation at the time) just another American and with a large landholding some 5 million acres it is not surprising that he took an interest in local affairs, as the rich and powerful seem inclined to do.

So to the general notability of the town itself. Is it the oldest, biggest, most powerful, or any other superlative? As far as I can see not; it is the second oldest town in the Shenandoah Valley, and with a population of less than 2000 not large, and not the capital of anywhere. A nice place to live but notable on a global scale over time, no.

Personally I can see no reason that the 1758 September 1 listing is retained. -- Drappel 21:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short of getting a historian to say it, Lords from Britian did not attend nor help in the charter and founding of a town. Only three occasions did this happen, Stephens City is one (Winchester and Leesburg being the other two, from which I have learned). Whether Lord Fairfax was here 20 years or 20 minutes is irrelevant. The fact that he was in Williamsburg for the charter and founding of Stephensburgh (now Stephens City), on September 1, 1758, as the Newtown History Center and the Virginia Historical Society say he was, is notable. - NeutralHomer T:C 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could give you evidence that other Lords did the very same thing but at this point I know it wouldn't matter. In light of your argument, I'm willing to agree that I won't revert the item as long as you concede that what is readily available in history books and the record of the General Assembly of Virginia is not evidence enough to change your belief that what you were told by an historian is absolutely and unquestionably the truth about the matter. I'm only disappointed that I took the time to research the topic to learn the true facts of the case only to find that the facts didn't matter. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some icing for this cake. I emailed with a representative of Newtown History Center today. Below is the text of the response:
The traditional date given in most books for the founding of Stephens City is September 1758. The exact date can be found in the records of the House of Burgesses, which is in Williamsburg.
Please note that the reference that I noted above (at 00:04, 16 July 2007) is the same that this representative pointed me to. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You get the exact date from the House of Burgesses in Williamsburg and we will have our answer. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not understanding me. The House of Burgesses is the General Assembly. The book I quoted is the official record of the House of Burgesses. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you're giving me a migraine. I'll go up to the Newtown History Center and talk with the historian there. She is the one who gave me the September 1 date to begin with and I will have her write it down on paper and get you a copy of that. - NeutralHomer T:C 00:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I shall await your findings. And a written note is not necessary, just a valid and verifiable reference. Remember no original research. We cite books here, not people. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will have them cite their references, but if it is the Virginia Historical Society, I can't help that. But, I think the Virginia Historical Society would be a good enough reference, since it is state-owned and state-run. But I will let you know what I find out. - NeutralHomer T:C 01:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the "Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia: 1758-1761", we are both wrong. On Page 35 of that book, Stephensburgh was chartered and founded on October 3rd, 1758 and Lord Fairfax was only present for that charter and founding and the founding of Leesburg. He helped in the charter and founding of only Stephensburgh. Since this has been found, I am moving the entry to October 3. - NeutralHomer T:C 19:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial, no matter what day you put it on. I've pointed you to the policies, practices, and guidelines regarding entries to these pages, and multiple editors have removed it, to boot. It's gone. --Calton | Talk 20:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Calton, it's not "gone" just because you say it is. When something happens in a colonial state and it only happens THREE times in that state and only THREE times, yeah, it's notable. I have many forms of proof that Thomas Lord Fairfax only helped with the charter of Stephensburgh (later Stephens City) and no other town. He helped with the founding of Stephensburgh and what would be modern-day Leesburg, Virginia and the expansion of Winchester, Virginia, but he was only instrumental in the charter and founding of Stephensburgh. No other Lord from England did this and it was not common practice for Lords to do this. So, yeah, it's notable and way beyond trivial. - NeutralHomer T:C 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Reality Check, Number 237 in a Series: This event is not notable enough for inclusion in Days of the Year pages, since it's not important on a global, national, or even state-wide level. It's not the first of anything, it paved the way for no particular history, it illuminates no larger issue or historical trend, and is of no importance outside of a very small locality. It's objectively non-notable and completely trivial, no matter how you spin it. I've pointed you to numerous precedents, and it's been removed and/or opposed by multiple uninvolved editors: it's your obsession and your obsession alone, however immune you are to actual discussion, and it's going out. Clear? --Calton | Talk 03:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Let's knock these down, shall we?
  • important...state-wide level: Wrong; it is important, because in no other town would a British Lord participate in the charter or founding of a town again....never.
  • It's not the first of anything: Wrong; it is the first (and only) time that a British Lord would help in the founding and charter of a Virginia town and I dare say Colonial US town.
  • it paved the way for no particular history: Wrong, big time; the charter and founding, paved the way for the approaching 300 year history of an American town.
  • is of no importance outside of a very small locality: Wrong again; first, it is over state-wide importance and second, Stephens City is not "very small" by a long shot. Just because 2,500 people to you seems small, live here for a day, it ain't small.
  • I've pointed you to numerous precedents: Wrong; you have cited zero precedents. Unless citing a precedent is deletion.
  • it's been removed and/or opposed by multiple uninvolved editors: Wrong again; just two...you and User:Mufka.
  • it's your obsession: Wrong; unless providing Wikipedia with a extremely rare occasion in Virginia State History is some new obsession.
  • however immune you are to actual discussion: Wrong; I am more than open to actual discussion, you and I, however, have never had an actual discussion without you going on one of your "holier-than-thou, my intelligence knows all" rants of yours.
  • it's going out: Wrong again; it isn't, sorry.
  • Clear?: If us being clear, is that you are wrong on all points, then we actually agree on something.
Now, would you like to continue or is this enough for one night? - NeutralHomer T:C 03:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1982 - Canada adopts a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as part of its Constitution

[edit]

Didn't The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms come into force on April 17, 1982? If anyone knows what happened on September 1, 1982 concerning The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, please leave a note for me on my talk page...thanks. CWPappas 05:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appalchian State defeats Michigan

[edit]

This is notable because a sub division team beat a college power house. It was the biggest audience App State ever had in college football. I also believe people care for college football the same or more than Luxembourg going digital in television, so I belive that should be placed with it for being an important date on september 1st —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.95.117 (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an event of significant notability or importance. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Day that Hogwarts leaves.

[edit]

Could we add a fictional heading to some days, this day included, and state events that happen in fiction. For example today, September 1 is the day the train leaves for Hogwarts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.52.159 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead summary

[edit]

I think these date pages would all look a lot better if somebody wrote an engaging prose summary of the most notable events at the start like I've done here. They look bare without and I also think having some decent sources to support some of the more notable events can only help its encyclopedic value and quality and make it easier for the reader to extract from. I do hope that others follow my example in other pages. Even if a list, lists should have a decent lead at least.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted per WP:UNDUE. Who gets to determine which events have the super notability required to merit a mention in the lead? Further discussion is best had at WT:DAYS. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a post at WT:DAYS, please comment there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the owners are happy to edit war to stop any changes on this page. Shame, as it will remain a fairly shoddy page. - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss the article, not editors. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I've just had to slap an edit warring tag on one of your chums, I think the discussion about attempted ownership by a project is more than justified. My comment about this remaining a shoddy and shabby page remains as equally germane. - SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By chum, you mean fellow editor I assume. I know nothing about Arthur Rubin other than that they gave you a 3RR warning as well. The project (which I'm not even a member of, yet) is small and there are some ownership issues, I agree. WP:RY is similar. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would one of the <redacted> editors who has added the lead, which is bloated by WP:LEAD standards, please restore the {{content}} tag I added. It would technically be a revert for me to add the tag, even though it was improperly removed. It is not possible that there is consensus in favor of the addition, although it's possible that there isn't a present consensus against the addition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"<redacted>"? Bit childish really, especially from an Admin. As the content tag is about deleted material, and that material has now been returned, it's not really relevant to have the tag. - SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read the text of the {{content}} tag: "The information may have been removed or included by an editor as a result. Please see discussion on the talk page considering whether its inclusion is warranted." (emphasis in original). I don't think a sufficient argument has been presented that the existing article- and project-consensus that it should not has been overridden, so this is still a discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes: a 2005 consensus? That's not a great benchmark, considering it was agreed up before most of our quality standards were introduced. A nine year old consensus on Wiki is something that pre-dates the dark ages: it's like saying that because the dinosaurs agreed this, then we're going to stick with it. The world has moved on, Wikipedia has moved on, and our standards have moved on. It's time these unsourced, unsupported and non-MoS compliant pages joined the real world. - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's time for you to establish a WP:CONSENSUS for your statements, as they are not obviously logical consequences of the (inconsistent) guidelines as written. You may have a slight majority, if you include all those who have posted recently who do not oppose the edits vs. those who do oppose them at present. If you restrict yourself to those that support the edits, I'm not sure you even have a majority. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What an odd grasp of the situation you have: your summary certainly doesn't reflect the reality of the situation, which is that a decent enough consensus exists, given the recent comments on the project page. Your rearguard action in attempting to cling to an out-dated, ancient and non-compliant "consensus" is bizarre. Your attempts to retard the improvement of the encyclopaedia are unfathomable, and you really should examine your motives here. As to your edit summary here "I can see _some_ of the arguments being good faith, although questionable": this shows a rather arrogant attitude to others. There have been a stack of extremely experienced and knowledgable editors who have commented on this, and to reject their arguments just because they have the temerity to disagree with you, says more about you than them, tbh. – SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see the point in adding tags to the article. Is it really too long? It looks comparable in length to lists I've seen recently at FLC actually. It could use a bit on festivals at the end still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs)
It's over 20% of the article. And there is clearly not a majority in favor of the edits; whether there is consensus depends on the value of the arguments, on which an uninvolved editor would need to comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure you can count if you think there are less in favour of having a lead! Here and on the project page there are clearly more. As you've indicated, it's not about the number the !votes, but the arguments based on policy. All I see from those who don't want change is straw clutching at an archaic consensus from 2005–way before any of our standards were. What I see from those in support of the lead is a basis in the use of MoS. Thankfully your lack of neutrality ensures you won't be making a one-sided decision against what must be blindingly obvious to anyone else. – SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might be time for RfC (probably best located on the project page). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Random Acts of Kindness Day

[edit]

No doubt these people are well-intentioned, but is this really a "thing" which should be here? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on September 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2019

[edit]

The following sentences under Events, "The army of Mohammad Ayub Khan is routed by the British at the Battle of Kandahar, ending the Second Anglo-Afghan War" and "Catherine II of Russia endorses Ivan Betskoy's plans for a Foundling Home in Moscow" are each missing a period at the end. 98.210.124.96 (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — MRD2014 (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a birth

[edit]

Add Jeon Jungkook in Births. Maxime12346 (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 16:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Release of Roblox?

[edit]

It is under events, 2006. While I have no doubt over the editor's good intentions, I'm pretty sure this isn't a culturally significant event. This would belong to 2006 in video gaming. 83.9.223.50 (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I've removed it. Deb (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue of Roger Mallinson and Roger Chapman

[edit]

Hello,

is the Rescue of Roger Mallinson and Roger Chapman notable enough to be inserted at the September 1 page?

Best regards Yeti-Hunter (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to have much international coverage. Deb (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The word about the rescue made it at least across the Atlantic Ocean. The New York Times had an article. https://www.nytimes.com/1973/09/02/archives/2-in-submarine-rescued-as-it-is-raised-on-3d-day-sub-is-raised-and.html and the canadian newspaper Le Soleil had also an article https://numerique.banq.qc.ca/patrimoine/details/52327/3112562 Besides of this the BBC made a documentary: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23862359. Roger Chapman later developed the rescue submersible LR5 which was used by the Royal British Navy from 1978 to 2009. The US Navy supported the rescue operation with the Cable-controlled Undersea Recovery Vehicle CURV which was flown to Ireland in order to rescue the two lifes. So, I do not agree with your quick statement that there is not much international coverage. Remember this happend back in 1973 where the Internet was not yet invented. ;-) Yeti-Hunter (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it did make it across the Atlantic but that's not exactly international. I would expect an event of international importance to be covered in multiple Wikipedias. Deb (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_1&oldid=1221741498"