Talk:July 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former FLCJuly 20 is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Article milestones
January 30, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
November 28, 2005Featured list candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured list candidate
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.
This box: viewtalkedit
Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page
Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box.

July 20

Special Olympics athletes in 2013
Special Olympics athletes in 2013
More anniversaries:


I put this page on needing copyediting because I've been staring at it so long it needs fresh sets of eyes to look it over. PedanticallySpeaking 15:26, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Good God - 62KB? This article is now too long to be useful to most people. The purpose of the day pages has never been to document everything that happened on that day, but to include the most notable events. Each section in this article badly needs to be summarized/abridged and the current detail moved to Events of July 20, Births on July 20, and Deaths on July 20 (the last two would be a bit redundant with category:July 20 births and category:July 20 deaths, but oh well). --mav
I got it down to below 32K, but it still needs work. Kingturtle 03:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I today created subpages to the article, two for events, one each for births and deaths. I also restored the references section to the main page and placed it on each of the subpages. None of them produce a message about the length of the article.

The statement was made that the page is "too long" and not useful. I compiled this so that for every year for the past eighty years has at least one event. Everyone is curious as to what happened on the day they were born and this enables them to find out at least one thing. PedanticallySpeaking 18:07, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Problems with edit[edit]

When this page was cut down by others it deleted important information, such as what country Michael I became king of or what government Kerensky headed. Wholesale deletionism has eliminated context. And for what purpose? PedanticallySpeaking 16:25, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


I restored this to 14:52, 22 November 2005 by MisfitToys. A large edit like needs to have some discussion, or at least edit summaries.--Bookandcoffee(Leave msg.) 18:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got it backwards: it looks like was cutting back on the extreme bloat added by User:PedanticallySpeaking. Looks like he should have tackled the excess images and overcategorization User:PedanticallySpeaking added, too, though. --Calton | Talk 00:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The images gave life to the page. I was always taught one needed to break up large quantities of text. Second, the purpose of having lots of events was to help those interested in what happened on the day they were born. There was an event for every day of the last eighty years or better. I worked very hard on this and I'm hurt that my work is summarily dismissed as "extreme bloat". PedanticallySpeaking 15:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You added 29 images -- most of them pointlessly decorative -- to the page. And you needed to break up large quantities of text because you added a ludicrous amount of it to the page.
Second, the purpose of having lots of events was to help those interested in what happened on the day they were born. That's your idea and no one else's, not to mention that you seemed to be assuming that this hypothetical someone is keenly interested in minor US congressional actions, US political minutiae, American labor milestones, random military manuveurs (not even battles), and not much else. Your additions were not only American-centered, they were of a particularly thin slice of American interests.
I worked very hard on this and I'm hurt that my work is summarily dismissed as "extreme bloat". You not only didn't bother to get any input before embarking on this, but you violated several established precepts while doing so (images, subheadings, birth/deaths of those who have articles, etc.), so I have little sympathy for whinging about the hard work you shouldn't have done in the first place. You're hurt? You'll get over it.
And what is it about July 20? You once piled up the non-notable births on this page, as I recall, and split them off into subpages before they were deleted and lists trimmed. Is this your birthday or something? --Calton | Talk 16:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The deletions made by another in the past were also done without any discussion and when I attempted to produce a compromise I was shot down then. I'm interested in this day because it's the day of the first moon landing. Maybe you don't mean to, but I get this really hostile tone from your reply. I hope it is not intentional because it is the sort of vibe which causes contributors to walk away from our project. PedanticallySpeaking 16:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The deletions made by another in the past were also done without any discussion. You mean the ADDITIONS were done without any discussion, don't you?
...and when I attempted to produce a compromise I was shot down then That should have been your first clue.
I get this really hostile tone from your reply I don't respond well to manipulative self-pity, perhaps. I do respond to actual arguments and actual responses: the only one I've gotten is that you're interested in Apollo 11.
I'm certainly annoyed at all the work I had to do to clean up your "improvements" (another sin I neglected to mention: the subject titles, like "[[Far East]]:" and "[[Massachusetts]]:"-), because, instead of simply reverting you I sifted through it all, just to be fair.
The only good thing to come out of it is the New York Times page link, which I'm going to add to other date pages.

-Calton | Talk 00:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your reply shows further debate would not be productive. For those who are interested in seeing the page before the deletions discussed above, I am posting it at User:PedanticallySpeaking/July 20. PedanticallySpeaking 16:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record I mostly agree with Calton re keeping this article from being bloated. However, I do think that adding some images here and there for the most important events and people would make the article easier to read. --mav 20:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have not edited this page, but I do habitually read/skim these "On this day" pages. For me, "more is better." However, I'm grateful for those who actually get in and edit. I appreciate whatever the community decides will appear. I would ask that others look at the event entry for 1965, which I'll say happened on August 13th not July 20th. Jonathan Myrick Daniels [ ] has long been one of my heroes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmossbar (talkcontribs) 12:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


this article is up to 38k. we should really work to parse it down again. are we going to allow any event to be allowed? certainly this would cause problems. there should be some standards or guidelines. In Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year i have brought up this issue before. that discussion didn't go far. but i'd like to reintroduce the discussion.

a list of criteria might include: Firsts, lasts, battles, precedents, truces, assassinations (and attempts), royal weddings, head of state resignations, verdicts?, passages of substantial legislation, terrorist events, milestones?, space exploration, UN Security Council decisions, major natural disasters, creation of new nations, unique scientific events (comets hitting Jupiter). and what else? Kingturtle 21:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Benjamin Decoux[edit]

Benjamin Decoux (Nov. 8 1980-present) is a renowned gamer, movie/music critic and director. He is most famous for his production "Neumann’s Payday" which he not only wrote and directed but also stared in as the lead role. The short play received mixed reviews from the critics but was a big hit among patrons. (added by anonymous editor)

Odd, his name doesn't appear on Google. Let's at least wait until he creates his own web page. Rklawton 05:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


there is way too much minor info listed for this day. WillC 19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interstellar Date Line[edit]

It is interesting that the anniversary of the first moon landing is 20 July. That is, of course, only relevant to which side of the International Date Line you were on at the time.

In Australia for example, the actual day of the first moon landing was 21 July 1969. That is the day upon which thousands of Australians were gathering around televisions and radios to watch and listen to the first moon landing. Of course, in the USA, it was still 20 July 1969, so they have a different perspective of which date it occured. My mother has quite a firm view on this matter: the first moon landing took place on 21 July 1969, as she was giving birth to my brother at the time, in New South Wales, Australia.

So this brings the question, what is the baseline for dating events that take place in space?

For this event, why was a date relative to the USA's position used? Yes, it was their moon mission, but is that reason enough to use their relative date? Even the TV signal relay was picked up by a radio receiving station in Australia on 21 July 1969, I think because Australia was facing the moon at the time. So that's another reason - the USA was on the OTHER side of the Earth when the first moon landing took place, meaning that the moon was on Australia's side of the International dateline.

Anyway, just thought I would mention that, and ask the baseline question. Thanks!-- 06:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Easy, this is the date that NASA gives for the landing [1] . Fitzharry 22:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UTC is probably the most sensible to go by, but the time and date from the launch location seems reasonable, as does that of the equivalent point on earth – i.e. if the moon was directly above China at the time, then the Chinese time would be another good choice. --xensyriaT 22:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh, on second thoughts, I'm not so convinced by "where the moon was above"... This does still raise some interesting questions though. ‑‑xensyriaT 23:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The way it reads now, "1969 – Apollo program: Apollo 11 successfully makes the first manned landing on the Moon in the Sea of Tranquility. Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin become the first humans to walk on the Moon almost 7 hours later. (US Time)" makes me wonder how much later they walked on the moon in Soviet time. It might be worth noting that current space missions use UTC and researching whether that was the case for Columbia/Eagle. Perhaps the best way to annotate this is by the cited source (NASA) with a parenthetic (21 July, UTC) Eltrace (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I just made an edit that clearly explains both sides of this story. There are some reliable sources/organizations that recognize the EDT/CDT date-time of July 20th, and there are other organizations that recognize the UTC/GMT date-time of July 21st as to the actual date that those first steps took place, and which day is the proper day to celebrate its anniversary. The point made over at the article on July 21 is that our guidance is not to go by what we might think or feel, but rather what these reliable sources say. Both articles now clearly explain the discrepancy, with reliable sources/authorities cited, namely the United Nations as well as the Guinness Book of World Records. The NPOV answer for this case is for us to present both sides of this story clearly and concisely. The current edit for both articles (20&21) now do that adequately.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tony Oliva[edit]

Conflict on date of birth. July 20 listing has his DOB as July 20, 1940. But Tony Oliva article has it as July 20, 1038. If anyone in Minneapolis has his phone, please ask him to clarify. Tursiops (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Always go with the article. That is where the sourced information will be. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cinema 16 Shooting in Aurora, CO[edit]

Should the anniversary of the Cinema 16 Movie theatre massacre have its own entry in "on this day..."

This mass killing is very prolific. Not only because of the violent nature of such a high-profile mass killing but the fact that it happened so recently (exactly two years ago - as of this writing), merits an observance - even a small observance.

If there are reasons why this has NOT been given an 'on this day...' entry, I completely understand.

This talk page was created in the event of oversight.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Does not meet notability requirements of WP:NDOY. It's no different than any other mass shooting that are all too common here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naseeruddin Shah, Indian actor[edit]

I recently reviewed and rejected the inclusion of Naseeruddin Shah, Indian actor from the list of births for July 20. I did this on the basis that the actor's page opens: "Naseeruddin Shah (born 20 July 1949 or 16 August 1950[a]) is an Indian film and stage actor and director", indicating that his birthdate is not settled or is unknown. If that is the situation then I do not see a compelling case to have him included on this page s definitively having a birthdate of July20 . I have no intention of getting into an argument about this so will leave the review of the edit to another editor. But would like to point out that if this edit is accepted then there appears to be no reason to stop another entry on August 16. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on July 20. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


He died on the 21st according to the link:

--JFCochin (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Good spot – I've moved him to 21 July. ‑‑YodinT 17:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020[edit]

Under the "Observances and Holidays" section, July 20th is also observed as world FSHD day. So it should be added that World Facioscapulohumeral Muscular dystrophy (FSHD) Day is observed on this date. 2600:1009:B107:CCC3:CD17:AF70:4A4D:4253 (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it doesn't have its own Wiki page and is not mentioned at the article on FSHD If it was mentioned there, then you would need to provide a link here that is not Wiki. (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]