text:
Gustaf Retzius

Prof Magnus Gustaf (or Gustav) Retzius FRSFor HFRSE MSA (17 October 1842 – 21 July 1919) was a Swedish physician and anatomist who dedicated a large part of his life to researching the histology of the sense organs and nervous system.

Life
Retzius was born in Stockholm, son of the anatomist Anders Retzius (and grandson of the naturalist and chemist Anders Jahan Retzius). He enrolled at Uppsala University in 1860, and received his medicine kandidat degree there in 1866, transferred to the Karolinska Institute, where he received a Licentiate of Medical Science (Medicine licentiatexamen) degree in 1869 and completed his doctorate in medicine (PhD) in 1871 at Lund University. Retzius worked as an assistant under pathologist Axel Key; the two had a long partnership, publishing research together and the popular science Ur vår tids forskning.

He received an extraordinary professorship in histology at the Karolinska Institute in 1877 and an ordinary professorship in anatomy there in 1889 (acting from 1888), but resigned in 1890 after conflicts with other members of the institute. As he was married to the feminist Anna Hierta, daughter of the founder of the newspaper Aftonbladet Lars Johan Hierta, his personal wealth allowed him to pursue his research and writing without any stable employment. Moreover, Retzius served as the editor of the newspaper Aftonbladet (1884–1887) and was also a journalist there.

Journeys to Egypt and North America
Retzius traveled outside of Europe twice, both times together with his wife Anna. During these trips he was keen to buy ethnographic and archaeological collections for a planned ethnographic museum in Stockholm.

Egypt 1889–1890
In the winter of 1889–1890, they visited Egypt. Retzius published articles from the trip in Aftonbladet, which later came to be published as a book Skizzer och uppsatser: Bilder från Nilens land (Sketches and essays: Pictures from the Nile country). For two weeks departing from Cairo on Christmas Day, they traveled on the Nile. They first traveled up the river to the city of Aswan. There Retzius purchased collections in the bazaars. Soon the sellers realized that Retzius was a customer who could pay and they came to the boat and offered their goods and items directly from the beach. Retzius was looking for skulls for his anthropological studies and managed to acquire 30 "mummies" during an excursion from Aswan to some rock graves across the Nile where a "caretaker" on site sold the skulls to Retzius. Through some English officers he also managed to acquire six skulls from the Battle of Toski. On the way back down the Nile, they visited both Karnak and Luxor. In Luxor, he managed to buy a total of 125 skulls with the help of consul Ahmed Effendi Moustapha Ayyâd who sent out a person to dig up graves and bring the skulls. Once back in Cairo, Retzius had the opportunity to meet the famous Henry Morton Stanley, who just performed his failed expedition to liberate Emin Pascha. In Cairo, Retzius made further purchases of collections. Large parts of Retzius's collections are available at Medelhavsmuseet in Stockholm and at the Museum of Ethnography in Stockholm.

North America 1893
During six months beginning in June 1893, the Retzius couple traveled in North America. Just as during the trip to Egypt, an important goal was to buy collections for the future ethnographic museum, as well as to visit colleagues and their institutions. Also during this trip, Retzius reported in articles in Aftonbladet under the heading "Pictures from North America". However, there was never a book. The first visit was to Yale and the paleontologist Othniel Charles Marsh who was followed by several other university visits. They visited the World's exhibition in Chicago where they, among other things, saw ethnographic exhibitions and also several different indigenous people who performed and danced. Here they met the Danish Adrian Jacobsen and the famous Franz Boas. After the world exhibition, they visited several different places and cities, including Santa Fe. They get this opportunity to visit an "Indian settlement" outside the city. In Santa Fe there was an antique shop called Jake Gold's Free Museum (Gold's Old Curiosity Shop) where Retzius bought ethnography. For a few weeks, they visited the northwest coast and British Columbia. They came to the city of Victoria, where there were several traders for ethnography, and then traveled on the Vancouver Island. In Bella Bella, they met Adrian Jacobsen's brother Filip Jacobsen who made it possible for Anna and Gustaf to visit several different places during a 12-day trip and also to purchase ethnographic collections. A large part of the objects in the stores in Victoria had been collected by the Jacobsen brothers. Gustaf and Anna were dismayed at the methods used by the dealers to trick the indigenous people to relinquish older items that were not for sale. They were also critical of the missionaries in the area. Gustaf did not get as many skulls during this trip in comparison to the Egyptian journey, but he managed to acquire four so-called "longhead" skulls. The trip home to Sweden went via stops in several cities, including Chicago again, Baltimore and Washington. Large parts of the collections Retzius acquired during his journey can be found at the Ethnographic Museum.

Research
Retzius published more than 300 scientific works in anatomy, embryology, eugenics, craniometry, zoology and botany. He gave his name to the 60 micrometer-diameter Retzius cells in the central nervous system of the leech (Hirudo medicinalis).

During his time at the Karolinska Institute, he made important contributions to anatomical descriptions of the muscles of the eardrum, the bones of the middle ear, and the Eustachian tube.

His 1896 2-volume work Das Menschenhirn (The Human Brain) was perhaps the most important treatise written on the gross anatomy of the human brain during the 19th century.

He also studied ancient Swedish and Finnish skulls, following the steps of his father Anders Retzius, who had studied the crania of different human "races" and made pseudoscientific contributions to phrenology. Retzius was one of the fathers of the pseudoscientific race theory, "scientific racism", trying to glorify the "Nordic race" as the highest race of mankind.

Swedish Academy
Retzius was politically and socially active. Together with his wife he founded the Hierta-Retzius foundation, which is now administered by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which Retzius was a member of from 1879. The foundation has two funds, one for the promotion of biological research and the other for supporting projects of an important scientific or social nature.

In 1901 Retzius became a member of the Swedish Academy, following Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld's demise. He was also a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. As a result, he took part in the awarding of the Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Literature for years. However, his resignation from his chair in anatomy in 1890 meant that he could not participate directly in the choice of the Physiology or Medicine awardee; although he was an active nominator for that prize from 1901 to 1906, always including Santiago Ramón y Cajal. In addition, he could not send nominations for the other prizes.

During the decision process of the 1906 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, Retzius ardently stood up for a sole awarding to Santiago Ramón y Cajal, thus excluding Camillo Golgi. This was the same view held by Emil Holmgren in his report for the Nobel Committee. On the contrary, the evaluation by Carl Sundberg favoured Golgi over Cajal. Before the final decision, the written opinion of Bror Gadelius, who shared Holmgren's views was also taken into account. In the end, Cajal and Golgi were jointly awarded, being the first time this Prize was shared between two laureates.

Retzius himself was also a Nobel Prize nominee himself 23 times, in 11 different years from 1901 to 1916. Curiously, he was nominated by Cajal before 1906 and by Golgi after that year.

Death
He died in 1919 in Stockholm. He was survived by his wife. His seat at the Swedish Academy was taken by Adolf Noreen that same year.

title: Gustaf Retzius


text:
User talk:Jamescookmd

JFW | T@lk  08:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS All doctors are welcome at the Wikiproject "Clinical medicine"!

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Jamescookmd


text:
Anzac spirit

The Anzac spirit or Anzac legend is a concept which suggests that Australian and New Zealand soldiers possess shared characteristics, specifically the qualities those soldiers allegedly exemplified on the battlefields of World War I. These perceived qualities include endurance, courage, ingenuity, good humour, larrikinism, and mateship. According to this concept, the soldiers are perceived to have been innocent and fit, stoical and laconic, irreverent in the face of authority, naturally egalitarian, and disdainful of British class differences.

The Anzac spirit also tends to capture the idea of an Australian and New Zealand "national character", with the Gallipoli Campaign sometimes described as the moment of birth of the nationhood both of Australia and of New Zealand. It was first expressed in the reporting of the landing at Anzac Cove by Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett; as well as later on and much more extensively by Charles Bean. It is regarded as an Australian legend, although its critics refer to it as the Anzac myth.

Historical development of the concept
The British war correspondent Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett provided the first reports of the landing at Anzac Cove by the newly formed Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC). His report was published in Australia on 8 May 1915: "They waited neither for orders nor for the boats to reach the beach, but, springing out into the sea, they waded ashore, and, forming some sort of rough line, rushed straight on the flashes of the enemy's rifles." Ashmead-Bartlett's account of the soldiers was unashamedly heroic:

"There has been no finer feat in this war than this sudden landing in the dark and the storming of the heights... General Birdwood told the writer that he couldn't sufficiently praise the courage, endurance and the soldierly qualities of the Colonials (The Australians) were happy because they had been tried for the first time and not found wanting."

Also in 1915, in response to the reporting of the efforts of the Australian troops, the Australian poet Banjo Paterson wrote "We're All Australians Now", including the verse: The mettle that a race can show Is proved with shot and steel, And now we know what nations know And feel what nations feel.

The Anzac spirit was particularly popularised by Charles Bean, Australia's official war historian. For the soldiers at Battle of Gallipoli, Bean argued, life would not have been worth living if they had betrayed the ideal of mateship. Despite the loss at Gallipoli, Australian and New Zealand soldiers were seen to have displayed great courage, endurance, initiative and discipline. The Anzac rejected unnecessary restrictions, possessed a sardonic sense of humour, was contemptuous of danger, and proved himself the equal of anyone on the battlefield. Bean encapsulated the meaning of Anzac in his publication Anzac to Amiens:

"Anzac stood, and still stands, for reckless valor in a good cause, for enterprise, resourcefulness, fidelity, comradeship, and endurance that will never own defeat."

1958 saw the publication of Russel Ward's The Australian Legend. Promoting the egalitarianism of the Australian bush and its permutation into the Anzac soldiers as the Australian Legend, it soon became a landmark book in Australian historical writing. During the 1960s and 1970s, due to lack of observance of Anzac Day in general society, the idea of a unique Anzac spirit began to fade. Especially among baby boomers, interest in Anzac Day reached its lowest point in the aftermath of the anti-war demonstrations over Australian involvement in the Vietnam War. A resurgence in popular commemoration of Anzac Day in the 1980s (possibly linked to the release of the film Gallipoli) brought the idea of an Anzac spirit back into prominence in Australian political discourse. There has been an increase in people, especially youth, attending Anzac Day Dawn Services in Australia and New Zealand, where the Anzac spirit is often invoked.

National identity
Coming just fourteen years after the Federation of Australia, the Gallipoli campaign was one of the first international events that saw Australians taking part as Australians. As such, it has been seen as a key event in forging a sense of national identity. According to history professor Dr Frank Bongiorno:

"The Gallipoli campaign was the beginning of true Australian nationhood. When Australia went to war in 1914, many white Australians believed that their Commonwealth had no history, that it was not yet a true nation, that its most glorious days still lay ahead of it. In this sense the Gallipoli campaign was a defining moment for Australia as a new nation."

Ernest Scott's influential A Short History of Australia, which remained a standard school text for nearly four decades from 1916 and went through six editions in its author's lifetime, clearly enunciated this concept. In the preface to the book's first edition, Scott linked the European settlement of Australia with the idea of Australia becoming a nation on the battlefields of Gallipoli:

"This Short History of Australia begins with a blank space on the map and ends with the record of a new name on the map, that of Anzac."

Charles Bean also propagated this view, extending the notion to suggest that New Zealand nationhood was also born in the First World War. In 1924 Bean wrote that:

"Anzac Day now belongs to the past and during the war all energy was concentrated on the future but the influence of the Gallipoli Campaign upon the national life of Australia and New Zealand has been far too deep to fade… it was on the 25th of April 1915 that the consciousness of nationhood was born."

The popular belief that the Anzacs, through their spirit, forged Australia's national character, is still today frequently expressed. For example, in 2006 the Governor-General of Australia, Michael Jeffery gave an address in which he said that although the Anzacs lost the campaign they created a lasting identity for Australia:

"We are summoned to recall the battle sacrifices of Australian farmers and tally clerks, teachers and labourers and to commemorate outstanding courage and strength of character in the face of sustained adversity... [The campaign] won for us an enduring sense of national identity based on those iconic traits of mateship, courage, compassion and nous."

An extension of this belief is the idea that the Anzacs set an example for future generations of Australians to follow, laying the bedrock of "Australian values". In 2007 the Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson articulated this view, stating that the Anzacs "forged values that are ours and make us who we are, reminding us that there are some truths by which we live." Nelson had earlier argued that the story of Simpson and his donkey rescuing wounded men at Gallipoli "represents everything that's at the heart of what it means to be an Australian".

The Anzac spirit is also sometimes said to be exhibited during Australian civilian crises. For example, the Returned and Services League of Australia states: "The Spirit of the ANZAC continues today in times of hardship such as cyclones, floods and bush fires. At those times Australians come together to rescue one another, to ease suffering, to provide food and shelter, to look after one another, and to let the victims of these disasters know they are not alone."

In New Zealand, the Anzac spirit is similarly pointed to in some quarters as forming an important component of New Zealand national identity. The New Zealand Government's Ministry of Culture and Heritage states:

"New Zealand soldiers distinguished themselves with their courage and skill, establishing an enduring bond with the Australians they fought alongside ... Great suffering was caused to a small country by the loss of so many of its young men. But the Gallipoli campaign showcased attitudes and attributes - bravery, tenacity, practicality, ingenuity, loyalty to King and comrades - that helped New Zealand define itself as a nation, even as it fought unquestioningly on the other side of the world in the name of the British Empire. After Gallipoli, New Zealand had a greater confidence in its distinct identity, and a greater pride in the international contribution it could make. And the mutual respect earned during the fighting formed the basis of the close ties with Australia that continue today."

Criticism
Professor Manning Clark, in his influential work A History of Australia, suggested a contrasting image of the innocent and honourable Anzac soldier. From a range of sources he provided evidence of the soldiers' bad behaviour. For example, he documented that, as recruits, some indulged in sex orgies with an 18-year-old girl at the Broadmeadows camp before being shipped to war. Others confronted police in violent scuffles on the streets of Melbourne. Clark also recorded that in Egypt some soldiers burned the belongings of local people, brawled, got drunk and rioted.

Other scholars such as professor of politics at La Trobe University, Robert Manne, have also questioned the veracity of the Anzac legend, arguing that it is more accurate to describe the concept as a mythology. Dr Dale Blair of Deakin University suggests that:

"While traits such as egalitarianism, resourcefulness and initiative are assumed and maintained in the nation's popular memory as a truthful representation, not only of Australia's First World War soldiers, but also, of the national character, they were not sufficiently evident in the experience of the 1st Battalion [at Gallipoli] to justify their advancement as characteristics general to Australian soldiers or the nation."

According to Blair, the official war historian Charles Bean "advanced an idealised view of sacrifice to provide the nation with higher meaning and comfort as compensation for the death of its soldiers". Bean wrote in his diary that the "rule of censorship forbids criticism", and that the war correspondent should avoid "needlessly distressing their families at home". Professor Verity Burgmann of the University of Melbourne argues that the prevailing picture of Anzac and later battles on the Western Front as the highest representation of national unity and shared sacrifice is a misrepresentation, because two conscription referendums were defeated in Australia, and many Australians were totally opposed to any participation in the war. Conflicting reports on the factual events of the landing at Gallipoli on 25 April 1915, continue to surface with conflicting eye-witness reporting. Other sceptics have questioned the idea that Australia's "national character" was forged on the beaches of Gallipoli. In 2008 an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald stated:

"But why should Australians now, 90 years later, be still so eager for some stereotypical reaffirmation of their character? Why the self-doubt? The danger in the transformation - as remembrance replaces memory, and nationalism replaces remembrance - is that the solemnity and the serious purpose of Anzac Day will be lost in an irrelevant search for some kind of essence of Australianness."

Similarly, historian Mark McKenna disputes the notion that the character traits that supposedly define the Anzac spirit are uniquely and demonstrably Australian, arguing that these virtues are in fact universal, being "found in Palestine and Iraq, in Darfur and East Timor, in Afghanistan and Zimbabwe."

Alan Young, a World War II veteran and film maker, presents a different view of the origins of the Anzac tradition in his film Forging the Anzac Tradition, The Untold Story. Young argues that "If Gallipoli is the birthplace of the Anzac acronym, then the Western Front is where the Anzac legend grew up, stood tall and cemented their place in international history; and in our hearts". He points out that five times the number of men died in the "real war" at the Western Front than at the disastrous Gallipoli diversion, yet many Australians know very little of this sacrifice.

Some have also critiqued the masculine underpinnings of the Anzac legend. According to popular notions of the Anzac spirit, the male bonding or mateship becomes the main characteristic in the description of Australianess, yet these characteristics are seen to imply that the true Australian is inevitably and only male. Some feminists have therefore described this notion as being exclusionary and discriminatory, and contend that, as a result, it cannot possibly define what it means to be Australian. Professor Joy Damousi has questioned a view of an Australian national character which relies exclusively on militarism and heroism, arguing that this obscures a more complex, diverse and inclusive understanding of identity.

More broadly, Dr Martin Ball of the University of Melbourne argues that conflating the Anzac spirit with a collective Australian national character exposes an uncritically narrow understanding of Australian history:

"The Anzac tradition holds many values for us all to celebrate, but the myth also suppresses parts of Australian history that are difficult to deal with. Anzac is a means of forgetting the origins of Australia. The Aboriginal population is conveniently absent. The convict stain is wiped clean. Postwar immigration is yet to broaden the cultural identity of the population."

title: Anzac spirit


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/End7

End7
Advertisement. One of a handful of blatant ad edits by User:Cheeseus.
 * Delete. Advertising; and Wikipedia articles are not Mere collections of external links. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This is a speedie delete as spam. I've marked it as such.  Obviously, delete. JesseW 03:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/End7


text:
Talk:2006

CBGB
insists on including the closing of CBGB as a significant event, arguing "CBGBs has a global reputation as the venue launched punk and the international careers of Blondie, The Ramones, Television, Talking Heads et al, and probably has greater cultural significance than, say, Aleksandër Moisiu University, Albania". While the event undoubtedly had great cultural significance in the US, I don't think it's sufficiently international. Because has edit-warred this content in, I haven't removed it, but at the very least, we would need some sources to the international significance of the event. -- Irn (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable deaths
I do not believe Nina Schenk Gräfin von Stauffenberg, Lillian Asplund, and Wolfgang Přiklopil pass the criteria to be added to the deaths section. It is generally accepted that people only known for being a supercentenarian fail the criteria to be added. Does this apply for people who are only known for being the wife of someone else, or for being a survivor of the Titanic? Přiklopil doesn't even have his own article. ProjectHorizons (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good call. WP:RYD explicitly addresses this: Persons whose notability is due to circumstance rather than actual achievement (e.g. oldest person in the world or last surviving person of [x]) do not meet the basic requirement for inclusion. And if someone doesn't have their own article, they certainly don't meet the criteria. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Too many images
I've cleared out a few images which cause the images to extend beyond the bottom of the month (or, in one case, year). There is an IP cluster who has already added images to December deaths 3 times. I need help, here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

J Dilla vs. Don Knotts
The latter, by a wide margin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Eclipses
See WT:YEARS for a matter relevant to this page. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute
all three are contentious political topics that fall outside of the new bounds for Xinhua set less than a month ago. We do need a better source, it was ok when added but our assessment of Xinhua has changed dramatically. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not bonded to the issue but this just seems like a scrub of Xinhua. One was a trade route opening, the other had a reference from another source, and the Thailand topic pointed to an article that verbatim said the same thing. I didn't see anything contentious in the three points. Ifnord (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the change in reliability a scrub is appropriate, there is no reason to use Xinhua for these when multiple reliable sources have covered the issues. Are you really arguing that China-India border issues aren't contentious? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 * The RfC result was that Xinhua is reliable for most subjects. This was partly based on the fact that almost no examples of factual inaccuracies could be found by participants in the RfC. There has to be a concrete reason to suspect that Xinhua might be unreliable for a given citation, or else it's considered reliable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I would go check that result again, there are very few cases in which we can now use Xinhua. The closer disagreed with you, maybe you should drop it instead of trying to eternally re-litigate an RfC decision that didnt go your way? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

 * There is consensus that Xinhua News Agency is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the Government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. You can also look through the comments again, and specifically the discussions about whether there are actually any examples of Xinhua publishing false information. The closest example that was given was Xinhua publishing an estimate of the turnout for a demonstration that was given by the organizers, without attributing it to the organizers. That's a pretty minor problem, and I was honestly surprised by the fact that nothing more serious could be identified by any of the participants in the RfC. That's probably why the close noted consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for most subjects. The caveat about use for propaganda or disinformation is based on entirely theoretical concerns about what Xinhua might do, not what it has done. When evaluating whether to use Xinhua for a given subject, there should be concrete concerns about propaganda/disinformation before Xinhua is ruled out as a source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Getting back to the edit in question, I don't think there's any doubt that Xinhua is reliable to report that Montenegro declared independence from Serbia, that a trade route between India and China was reopened on a certain date, and that the government of Thailand was overthrown by the military in 2006. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Would you agree on replacing them with generally reliable sources as a compromise? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Xinhua is generally reliable in this context, as the RfC result states. I see no need to replace Xinhua here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The context for all three is different though, at the very least the Sino-Indian border dispute is definitely an area "where the Government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation.” At the very least we need a better source for that statement. I’m curious, in what areas do you see the consensus on Xinhua barring their use? It seems you dont think it impacts them at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 * In specific subjects in which there is clear evidence that they are being used for propaganda purposes. Only a few concerning instances were identified in the RfC (e.g., not attributing a crowd size estimate for a pro-China rally to the organizers). The mere fact that an issue concerns China is not evidence that Xinhua is being used for propaganda purposes. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The standard is “may have a reason” not “has been conclusively proven” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Death section update
I am updating the death section of this article and splitting the months into their own separate parts is there anybody I missed 4me689 (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Retrato oficial de Alfredo Stroessner.jpg

2006 Collage candidate images and topic suggestions
Give your opinion on what topics should be included in the 06' collage and what should be left out. making this talk sections cuz i don't know what to put on this collage

feel free to add a subject, I wonder what thinks about this, he's the person who makes the image collages of 2005, and 2008 - 2018. I also want to see what the regulars think, AKA, , , , and. also is there anything you would change on the other years collages.  4me689  (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My personal website, Future Timeline, has various events listed for 2006. A few I'd consider for the collage: the launch of Twitter, North Korea's first nuclear test, Pluto (dwarf planet), the execution of Saddam Hussein. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur that these are also good options. We did put Saddam H in the 2005 collage, so would we want him twice in a row? @Wjfox2005 @4me689 The ganymedian (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think his death was notable enough to be included in 2006 too. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think a picture of his execution is too graphic for this collage? @Wjfox2005 The ganymedian (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt any such picture exists on Wikipedia, but in any case, no need to include it. Just a portrait/profile view of him would be enough. Wjfox2005 (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright. I will start on a draft of the potential collage @Wjfox2005 The ganymedian (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Wjfox2005 @4me689  I am having trouble finding a twitter logo without a checkered background, should I use Jack Dorsey instead? The ganymedian (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this one okay? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Twitter_logo.svg Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely B, D, E, F. I will look into events to see if I can find more potential options. @4me689 The ganymedian (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * BDEFI Are good I think they cover a good level category representing sports/entertainment, politics, war, science, and weather/natural events respectively. I think each collage should include one of each of for each year. PaulRKil (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In the list of candidates, Typhoon Xangsane should be replaced with Typhoon Durian, which caused over 1500 deaths and was the deadliest tropical cyclone of 2006, while the former only caused just 312 deaths. Nagae Iku (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Collage thoughts
Please let me know if anyone has any disagreements on the images included in the collage, and I will put it up for vote. Thanks The ganymedian (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please remove everything about the Wii from this collage. Deb (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein and 2006_Mumbai_train_bombings should be in this collage. Gennicyro4 (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @The ganymedian Gennicyro4 (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @The ganymedian i think i change my mind, the Wii should definitely be on this collage, it is one of the most sold console ever and a revolution, i think you should remove twitter launch from the collage as it was a still unknown social network and it was not part of the notable events of that year Gennicyro4 (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @The ganymedian @Gennicyro4 @4me689 @Deb @The0Quester @DementiaGaming
 * I think that Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 could be replaced with the 2006 Lebanon War because the latter event is more international in scope and resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians and hundreds of military personnel on both sides, whereas the former only caused 154 deaths and is more localized. Additionally, the entry for the Lebanon War is over 300,000 bytes in length. Nagae Iku (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You may not be aware that by pinging specific people you may be accused of canvassing. If you want to call people's attention to this discussion, you should go to WikiProject Years. Deb (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added the topic on that page, as for the ping, if I don't use it, the topic I added may take a long time to catch people's attention. Nagae Iku (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * you're right, I think twitter should also be replaced as it wasn't a major event of the year.I also changed my mind and I think the Wii should be on the collage. Gennicyro4 (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, but after this, we need to stop editing the images. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Gennicyro4 (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you plan to modify it? Gennicyro4 (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wanna do it. But after this period of editing, I started to feel fatigue and fear because I felt that no matter what I did, there would always be someone who was dissatisfied. Nagae Iku (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If the 2006 collage is not depreciated, then I propose we replace Twitter with the Lebanon War. As discussed in 2001, adding software or websites are illogical, as they reached their peak popularity years after they were created instead of the year they were created. GTA 1907 should stay. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, and as I said several times above I think the execution of Saddam Hussein and/or the Nintendo Wii should be in the collage too Gennicyro4 (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Putting the Wii on the collage is also illogical. The Wii reached its peak popularity in 2009. DementiaGaming (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * (i'm Gennicyro4) I understand your point of view but i don't find it illogical, i think the Wii should be in this collage because its release was a highly anticipated event of the year, and it had an actual impact and importance from the day it was released. I think at least as i said many times the execution of Saddam Hussein should be in it and i don't understand why it is in the 2005 collage. But beside that i think the collage that The0Quester made is alright and It's no problem if we don't put it in Multifruit223 (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Wii was only the seventh-most popular video game console, that's why the Game Boy is not on the 1989 collage and the Xbox 360 isn't on the 2005 collage (or why the PS2 shouldn't be on the 2000 collage, for the second time) DementiaGaming (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 2006 Events Collage 3.0.jpg Here's the collage i made except Twitter is replaced by the Lebanon War The0Quester (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, The0Quester. This version of the collage is excellent, replacing all the controversial grids. It deserves to be included in the article. Nagae Iku (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this version of the collage. It is much better now. But i still think the Wii or Saddam Hussein execution should be in it as both are bigger events than FlightGol 1907. but if the others dosen't agree than the collage is fine as you did it Multifruit223 (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Nintendo Wii
Can someone please find a reliable source for the launch of the Wii? Cause it just seems weird to me that there is a photo of the Wii on the top of this page and yet its launch isn't listed in events. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 * It should be in the 2006 in video gaming. These events should NOT be included in the article outside of collage. MarioJump83 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Collage depreciation
At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years, a discussion on whether to depreciate collages in general in going on. Please share your thoughts. Koopinator (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Roblox?
Does anyone here think it's notable for 2006 alone? There were lots of cases in the past where individual video games were removed from year articles because they're not notable enough. Also scroll up in this talk page to see people talking about if another thing video-game related, the Wii, belongs on this article or not. At least Wii was popular from the beginning, but Roblox wasn't that popular when it first came out. 35.141.142.199 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@User:ItsCheck are you ready to discuss this? If not now, then when? 35.141.142.199 (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

 * You provide a good argument. I think someone with more experience should handle this as I was just reverting vandalism from recent changes and found your edit. ItsCheck  (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

 * @ItsCheck Wait, you're saying my edit is vandalism? Didn't you assume good faith in the description of your revert? 35.141.142.199 (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I specified that your edit was good faith in my edit summary. I was reverting vandalism when I found your edit, that is all. ItsCheck  (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok 35.141.142.199 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC - February 12, 2024
Roblox may be popular, but it wasn't popular when it was first released. It didn't reach peak popularity until the late 2010s. Does it belong here? 35.141.142.199 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Responses

 * Remove Roblox from this article. It's just a single game first of all, and second of all it wasn't that popular or significant for 2006 alone, as it didn't get popular until the 2010s. I was going to remove it by myself, but ItsCheck (talk) reverted my edit just because he thinks Roblox is popular. Popularity of a game doesn't mean it can be included directly on a year article, it better belongs on 2006 in video games instead. 35.141.142.199 (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Roblox can stay in the article. I'm no expert on year pages but for comparison Twitter (which was not so popular at first, but today has a comparable relevance to Roblox), as well as Microsoft Office 2007, and Google's acquisition of Youtube all make the cut in this article. Sure this page could be improved with less weight on trivia related to tech products, but Roblox is a pretty big deal and as a reader I thought it was interesting that it was introduced so early. Groceryheist (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Drawing attention to edit war
Hello @. Please refrain from removing content without adequately explaining why. Roblox is a highly popular game, so please keep it on the article, even if it has no citation. Let someone with more experience add a citation. ItsCheck the 2nd (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This has been explained many times to you. See WP:WikiProject Years/criteria.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  14:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ It says SELDOM notable. Because Roblox is a big deal and is highly popular, it is part of the few video games that make the cut for seldom notable. ItsCheck the 2nd (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ItsCheck the 2nd it also states that it requires a secondary source for it to be included, which you have failed to provide. Gaismagorm (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @: Roblox is exempt from the citation requirement. I told IP @ about it before. ItsCheck the 2nd (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ItsCheck the 2nd could you please explain why exactly it is exempt, and how this was decided? Gaismagorm (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @: It is exempt because IP 35 is an extremely mean editor who keeps personally attacking me and trying to damage my online reputation. He even created an account to humiliate me even more. Because Roblox is highly popular, it only makes sense for it to be on this article, even if there is no citation and it had little popularity the year it was made. ItsCheck the 2nd (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ItsCheck the 2nd Being attackd by another user is not a proper reason for making Roblox exempt from the criteria. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ Actually, it is. They were the one who removed Roblox a few months back. I reverted it and templated them, but they personally attacked me even though I was protecting Wikipedia against unexplained content removal. About a month ago, they started using my mistakes I made against me, even though my recent edits on my main account have been constructive without any errors. Their personal attacks have been going on for almost half a year now. This is just unacceptable. ItsCheck the 2nd (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ItsCheck the 2nd I think maybe a good solution for this, is if you find a good citation, and insert it. Also I do understand what you are saying about the IP, and from what I can tell there might have been some malicious intent behind them. But this still doesn't change how we need a citation. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey there. This is not my account. Please ignore anything that they have said. Thank you. ItsCheck  (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:2006


text:
User:Pincus

Hi.

title: User:Pincus


text: Wikipedia:POTD/December 7, 2004

title: Wikipedia:POTD/December 7, 2004


text: Wikipedia:Picture of the day/December 7, 2004