Contents

Talk:1890

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Years Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Year in topic[edit]

The year in topic layout on this page is one of three versions. I seek opinions before making them all the same; see comment on my talk page

1890 is NOT currently conforming to proposed general model paragraph "year in topi" needs deleting --BozMo 12:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)(talk)[reply]

[See: Talk:1950#Format. -Wikid77 12:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)][reply]

26-December-2006: Somehow the entry for Wounded Knee was added 4 years ago (29Dec2002) claiming "400 men, women and children" were massacred by U.S. troops; the article "Wounded Knee Massacre" states only 153 Lakota Sioux AND 25 troops were killed (150 fled). Nearly 4 years later, I have fixed the "400" error from 29-Dec-2002. Beware of people or dubious sources trying to needle others by exaggerating data to their agenda. -Wikid77 12:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what does the link for Alice Sanger have to do with a book publushed in the 1950s? this should be fixed or just tell me if im wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.14.21 (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an erroneous redirect to me. I've nominated it for discussion. 66.214.40.255 (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A number of sources indicate that the steamship Duburg was sunk on 17 February 1890, however, this contemporary newspaper article [1] which refers to it as being missing is dated 17 January. I very much doubt that it was adrift for a month before it sank. It is likely that it was sunk before 17 January and it took some days before the newspaper report was printed. Who knows? Bazonka (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]