text:
Talk:October 26

--mav 00:39, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was recently perusing this page because I was making the Template anniversaries page for this article. Some things I noticed:

 * This page says the International Federation of the Red Cross was formed in 1863. But the article says it was 1919. When was it?
 * This page says that Boulder Dam's first generator went online October 26. But the article says October 9. When was it?
 * This page says that Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty in October 1994. History of Jordan says it was in July 1994. If there were two treaties, then I have to wonder why... If there was one, when did it occur?

So, can the people who added these to the article provide cites? LuckyWizard 01:14, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to the official chronology of the Hoover dam, here, It was October 26th. I am updating the Hoover Dam article, and adding it pack to this page. LordJumper 19:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

American Idol event
"2006 - Mayré Martínez wins the first Latin American Idol." I know people take this show very seriously but is this really notable? -- Borameer ™ 17:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Probably notable in the context of TV game shows and the like, so if there is a chronology page for that genre then it would be fine there. But very not-notable in the general history of the world.  Darcyj 11:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Decommissioning of USS Iowa?
Today's the 19th anniversary of the Decommissioning of the USS Iowa, should any mention be made? or would that be better for the 20th anniversary? Alec92 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are decommissionings celebrated? I haven't heard of that before. How many battleships have been decommissioned by the fleets of the world? It must be a hundred, not counting those that were sunk in battle. Is this decommissioning more notable than most?   Will Beback    talk    18:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

holidays and observances - Alfred the Great
The Wiki article indicates that he is not held as a saint by the Catholic Church as such - should this specify "Church of England"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * in fact it does not indicate that he is held a saint by anybody. Why is he here?

Notability
What is the threshold of notability here? The funeral has its own article as an event and yet it is not notable? While the 2004 release of GTA San Andreas is? Sodacan (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

 * I am now aware of the the content guidelineof the the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide and I can provide a hundred sources. I am not in an edit war, I have asked the user his opinions and received none. Sodacan (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Intersex awareness Day in holidays and observances
this is an unofficial grass rooted thing. does it count? --142.163.195.253 (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Jack Bruce
Jack Bruce is listed in the Deaths section, but is also listed on the 25 October OTD page (the main article about him gives his death date as the 25th, too). JezGrove (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 * The source has the 25th as well so I've removed his name from this article and added the ref to 26th October article. Suonii180 (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:October 26


text:
Talk:October 27

Events
In the blurb about Wallis Simpson, it says that her divorce forced the abdication of Edward VIII. I would posit that it should say something less inflammatory along the lines of "precipitated Edward VIII's choice to abdicate the throne." This is the language used on Edward VIII's own page and better shows that the choice was made by two adults, not that his hand was forced by a woman who wanted a divorce. Sublett1025 (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Deaths
Are there really no significant 19th centuary deaths, or has someone vandalised them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.165 (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sports
How important does a sport event have to be to be listed here? Or is it just US sports? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.41 (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It has to be of major, international importance. Fans often add trivial events and results to this page - they should be removed. Jim Michael (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the inclusion of the Boston Red Sox winning their first World Series title in 86 year in 2004, I do think it has relevance. Certainly a major championship is not trivial, and Major League Baseball and the World Series certainly have major international significance, at least throughout the Western Hemisphere. As it stands currently, there are zero other sports events listed for this date, so it certainly does not seem to be a problem of there being too many trivial things here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.36.67 (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Navy Day
Navy day was officially moved to October 13, so either Navy Day should be removed from the October 27 page or it should be noted that October 27 is the OLD date. QHand (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan
OK, I’ve just seen that adding the line about Operation Herrick has been reverted.

I’ll apologise for RE adding it.

Or wanting to, at least.

The line about the operation had originally been included in the entry for the 26th of October. But the article on Operation Herrick said the withdrawal was on the 27th.

Given that? Why has the line been removed from the 27th? Cuddy2977 (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

 * 2014 – Britain withdraws from Afghanistan after the end of Operation Herrick which started on June 20, 2002 after 12 years four months and seven days.

Philadelphia
The October 27 page announces, "Philadelphia is founded in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

According to the article "Philadelphia" on Wikipedia, the date was October 25.

Which, if either, is correct?

--Vicedomino (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Wrong dates
Several birthdays or events listed here are for October 2. A few random examples are: John André, Don McLean, Sting, Mike Rutherford, Annie Liebovitz, Avery Brooks, Ron Meagher, Johnny Cochran, Rock Hudson, Nipsey Russell, Gene Audry, Tom Petty, Jamal Khashoggi, Nat Turner, Groucho Marx and Michael Myers being expelled from Congress in 1980. Correction, was on wrong page from auto-suggest. Colonial Computer 14:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Colonial Computer 15:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Colonial Computer 15:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Frumentius.
This page tells us that 27th October is the (Roman Catholic) feast day of Saint Frumentius.

The Wikipedia entry tells us it’s 20th July.

Is it possible an editor could double check — and correct — the dates, please?

Thanks

Cuddy2977 (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:October 27


text:
Talk:October 31

Helicopter escape

 * 1973 - Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape. Three Provisional Irish Republican Army members escape from Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, Republic of Ireland after a hijacked helicopter landed in the exercise yard.

 * This event does not seem to me to be a globally notable event. Unless it can be established that this particular event was a major turning point in a war or government action and had lasting worldwide impact, it should be excluded.  It would also need to be established that this particular event can be considered notable by a global audience.  The amount of news coverage that this event had at the time it occurred is not relevant to the argument.  The fact that it has an article on the subject is not sufficient to call this event globally notable.  Please see WP:DOY for details on what is considered globally notable.  Please don't compare this event to other events that are listed as this event must be evaluated on its own merits (and the newest listings always get first attention).  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't think so. WP:DOY doesn't have consensus, and is easily the most ridiculous attempt at a guideline I've ever seen. How anyone has the temerity to claim that an event that is notable enough for an article is "non notable" is beyond me. While I fully agree that these articles shouldn't be filled with every news story going, to try and exclude notable events is just plain stupid. One Night In Hackney  303  14:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 * According to [[Image:CCC_Flowchart_5b.jpg|50px]], I submit that consensus does exist. Long standing practice and widespread acceptance can mean nothing less than consensus. As we all know, consensus can change so I would ask that you make your opinion known on the talk pages for WP:DOY and WP:DAYS.  I understand that you have an emotional attachment to the subject, since you wrote the article on it.  But refusing to discuss it does not help make an argument that this event should be included.  Calling the goals of WP:DAYS stupid is not productive and is insulting to the editors who put many hours of effort into maintaining useful and informative date articles.  Without some sort of guideline to limit what is included in the date articles, they would all be over 100k long and would be full of junk.  I consider your comment arrogant and personally insulting and I only ask that you engage in productive dialog.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 * This event should be on 1973 in Ireland, not here. Whilst it is notable, it is not a world event, hence it is insufficiently notable to be on this article. Jim Michael (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Halloween
Any editors interested in exploring the idea of a Wikiproject for Halloween should contact me on my talk page. Thank you.--otherlleft (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ezra reading the Torah
I removed the following:
 * 445 BCE – Ezra reads the Book of the Law to the Israelites in Jerusalem (see Nehemiah 9:1, NLTse).

Since this event is based on the Jewish Lunar calendar, it moves yearly and is not fixed to a specific Gregorian Calendar date. The date would have to be recalculated yearly to correspond to the correct Gregorian date. I haven't verified it, but I would find it suspicious that it falls on this date, and there are no citations that it has been correctly correlated to October 31, 2008 (1 Cheshvan, 5769 in the Jewish Calendar).--Abebenjoe (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Can there be pipe links on the Births/Deaths section?
It says "only for people for whom there is a Wiki page...no red links, no redirects." It doesn't say no pipe links, but if there is still no specific page for the actual person, can that be added? Can I make a pipe link from Joe Schmoe to his band's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.248.202 (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"eve of winter" in holidays and observances
The winter solstice is Dec 21 or thereabouts, not Nov. 1. How is Oct. 31 the "eve of the first day of winter in the northern hemisphere"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

 * I've read that the old Celtic calendar divided the year into halves rather than quarters, beginning (about) November 1 and May 1; and it's likely not unique. —Tamfang (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If anyone has a source for that as a current thing (rather than historic fact) they can put it in. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:October 31


text:
Talk:November 2

Melbourne Cup
I removed the Melbourne Cup, because if you specifically mention the 2004 Melbourne Cup you need to mention for all years where the first Tuesday occurred on November 2 - same for November 1 and 3-7. -- Chuq 22:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cam
"Cam The Man"? Come on.

Mistake
The Faboulous Moolah wrestler can't die on different days choose 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.68.210 (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Stéphane Sarrazin
THe bio article on Stéphane Sarrazin states he was born in 1975. Here it says 1974. WHich is correct — Gaff ταλκ 23:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Always go by the article. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Latvian festivals
Yet another Latvian festival - I removed it. Why do these keep appearing with links to the Latvian mythology page when the latter has been disputed (and not corrected) for years. If it is a neopagan or some other form of modern festival, it should clearly say so. However, it should not be labelled as an "Ancient Latvian festival" without clear evidence. My objection is that, in the past, this has rarely been clear and the assertion "ancient" has been going unchallenged, apparently justified by links to the dubious Latvian mythology page. The Lesser Merlin (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Order
It seems to me like the section on holidays and observances should come ahead of the listing of historical events and births/deaths -- holidays are relevant today, while the rest is historical information. - 67.208.3.187 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Reet"?
Born 1989, "oldest newest friend". Link goes to a town in Germany. Can anyone explain or is this just a bizarre bit of vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nora nettlerash (talk • contribs) 10:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, forgot to sign. How embarrassing.Nora nettlerash (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Deaths?
I find it odd that no one ever died on this date. OK, I suspect some nitwit stipped all the deaths out. 72.86.37.79 (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Dubious claim
"619 – Emperor Gaozu allowed the assassination of a khagan of the Western Turkic Khaganate by Eastern Turkic rivals, one of the earliest events in the Tang campaigns against the Western Turks."

This is very dubious and should not be posted on the main page of Wikipedia. Tong Yabghu Qaghan (ruled 618-628) wasn't assassinated in 619 and the source didn't point out which qan (or other guests) was assassinated. The source did NOT at all claim any qaghan was assassinated. --146.111.30.193 (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Mistake?
OK, Wikipedia’s Timeline of WW1 say the [|Russian Empire] declared war on the Ottoman’s on 1st November …  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuddy2977 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:November 2


text:
Talk:November 5

--mav 00:43, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ron Paul
His fund raising accomplishment is not a globally notable event. He has no chance of becoming president and he will be forgotten long before the election. The record is only within the GOP party so that means that someone else has done better than him in the democratic party. Neither record would be globally notable. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you can delete it when he's out, but you're no Nostradamus. And it's not true that a Democrat has beaten his record, this is for largest amount collected ONLINE. Do your research... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.116.194 (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When I made my comment, this is what the event was listed as:
 * 2007 - Republican antiwar presidential candidate Ron Paul raises over $4.2 million dollars in 24 hours to break the record for most money raised in day by a GOP candidate ever.
 * There is no mention of online in there - I shouldn't have to do research to get an understanding of why something is notable. As it is written "to break the record for most money raised in day" is not terribly significant because the leading democrat raised nearly $6.2 million on June 30.  Additional notability does not come from segregating records by party (GOP) because we would next have the record for fund raising by a black, white, women, disabled, brown-haired, Californian, etc.  These "records" are insignificant since they will all be broken in the next election (or before the end of this one).  It is especially less notable because his campaign didn't even organize it.  But back to the question of global notability, how does this affect the price of tea in China?  The comment that "you can delete it when he's out" supports the argument that it is not notable enough for inclusion because the fact that he is in or out shouldn't affect the long term notability of the event. In 10 years someone should be looking back and saying "wow, that was a huge accomplishment".  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Back To The Future
November 5th, 1955 is the date in the first movie that Marty travels back to after Doc Brown programs the date in, recounting it as "a red letter day in history" (the day he came up with the idea for the Flux Capacitor). This is sometimes referred to as 'Flux Capacitor Day'. Not really Wikipedia article material, but hey, just putting it out there. --Thaddius (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * As you say, not really Wikipedia article material. The date is mentioned in the Back To the Future article but no mention is made of "Flux Capacitor Day".
 * Some morons keep on adding this to the article as if it was a real event. It has been removed enough times that they must know that this is not valid encyclopaedic content and they are clearly just doing it to be annoying. All attempts to add it as if it was a real event should be reverted as vandalism.
 * There may be a separate, good faith argument for an "In fiction" section with this listed but that would require proof that such a day is actually observed by fans of the film in a notable way. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How about a November 5th in popular culture section?

2.28.106.61 (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Events
Rather than just inserting it, I suggest, recommend, plead for the addition of:

1689, Protestant Prince William of Orange overthrew Catholic King James II of England to become King William III. Dick Kimball (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Do you have a source on that being the date? The William III of England pages says he invaded on 5 November 1688. The Britannica Online Encyclopedia article suggests that yes, that was the day he invaded, but he wasn't officially the king until later. Paul2520 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

 * OK, since my suggested inclusion clearly leaves room for improvement, how about:
 * 1689, Dutch Protestant Prince William of Orange (Willem III) invaded England to begin the "Glorious Revolution," leading to the overthrow of Catholic King James II of England, to become King William III
 * There's even a portrait of William III by Sir Godfrey Kneller on his Wikipedia page and an engraving of his landing by William Miller on the Wikipedia page for the Glorious Revolution, one of which you might want to include next year. ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:November 5


text:
Tris

Tris, or tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane, or known during medical use as tromethamine or THAM, is an organic compound with the formula (HOCH2)3CNH2. It is extensively used in biochemistry and molecular biology as a component of buffer solutions such as in TAE and TBE buffers, especially for solutions of nucleic acids. It contains a primary amine and thus undergoes the reactions associated with typical amines, e.g., condensations with aldehydes. Tris also complexes with metal ions in solution. In medicine, tromethamine is occasionally used as a drug, given in intensive care for its properties as a buffer for the treatment of severe metabolic acidosis in specific circumstances. Some medications are formulated as the "tromethamine salt" including Hemabate (carboprost as trometamol salt), and "ketorolac trometamol". In 2023 a strain of Pseudomonas hunanensis was found to be able to degrade TRIS buffer.

Buffering features
The conjugate acid of tris has a pKa of 8.07 at 25 °C, which implies that the buffer has an effective pH range between 7.1 and 9.1 (pKa ± 1) at room temperature.

Buffer details

 * In general, as temperature decreases from 25 °C to 5 °C the pH of a tris buffer will increase an average of 0.03 units per degree. As temperature rises from 25 °C to 37 °C, the pH of a tris buffer will decrease an average of 0.025 units per degree.
 * In general, a 10-fold increase in tris buffer concentration will lead to a 0.05 unit increase in pH and vice versa.
 * Silver-containing single-junction pH electrodes (e.g., silver chloride electrodes) are incompatible with tris since an Ag-tris precipitate forms which clogs the junction. Double-junction electrodes are resistant to this problem, and non-silver containing electrodes are immune.

Buffer inhibition

 * Tris inhibits a number of enzymes, and therefore should be used with care when studying proteins.
 * Tris can also inhibit enzyme activity via chelation of metal ions.

Preparation
Tris is prepared industrially by the exhaustive condensation of nitromethane with formaldehyde under basic conditions (i.e. repeated Henry reactions) to produce the intermediate (HOCH2)3CNO2, which is subsequently hydrogenated to give the final product.

Uses
The useful buffer range for tris (pH 7–9) coincides with the physiological pH typical of most living organisms. This, and its low cost, make tris one of the most common buffers in the biology/biochemistry laboratory. Tris is also used as a primary standard to standardize acid solutions for chemical analysis.

Tris is used to increase permeability of cell membranes. It is a component of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for use in children 5 through 11 years of age.

Medical
Tris (usually known as THAM in this context) is used as alternative to sodium bicarbonate in the treatment of metabolic acidosis.

title: Tris


text:
Talk:November 6

--mav 00:44, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nov 6 is when we switch from summer time to standard (2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.238.230 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lani Hall
I’ve moved Lani Hall: as the article about her lists her birthday as being on the 1st of November. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuddy2977 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

reference required in this case?
I corrected the new entry from an anonymous user to "1632 – King of Sweden Gustavus Adolphus dies in the battle of Lützen." But does this new entry also require a source from outside? (otherwise this book "Williamson, David. Debrett's Kings and Queens of Europe. pp. 124, 128, 194, 207. ISBN 0-86350-194-X." could be consulted if someone has access to this) Kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Unusually sparse entries
This date page is unusually empty compared to the pages for the 5th and the 7th; and the front page entry for this shows events that aren't marked on this page. Is there a reason for this? Fukkaudeku (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:November 6


text:
Historical Jesus

The term "historical Jesus" refers to the life and teachings of Jesus as interpreted through critical historical methods, in contrast to what are traditionally religious interpretations. It also considers the historical and cultural contexts in which Jesus lived. Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory. Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and Jesus was crucified.

Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the gospels, while several non-biblical sources also support his historical existence. Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria. Historical Jesus scholars typically contend that he was a Galilean Jew and living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations. Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the gospels to him, while others portray his "Kingdom of God" as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.

The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed through history using these processes have often differed from each other, and from the image portrayed in the gospel accounts. Such portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish messiah, prophet of social change, and rabbi. There is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, nor the methods needed to construct it, but there are overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others.

Historical existence
Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed. Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned." There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.

Since the 1970s, various scholars such as Joachim Jeremias, E. P. Sanders and Gerd Theissen have traced elements of Christianity to currents in first-century Judaism and have discarded nineteenth-century minority views that Jesus was based on previous pagan deities. Mentions of Jesus in extra-biblical texts exist and are supported as genuine by the majority of historians. Differences between the content of the Jewish Messianic prophecies and the life of Jesus undermine the idea that Jesus was invented as a Jewish Midrash or Peshar. The presence of details of Jesus' life in Paul, and the differences between letters and Gospels, are sufficient for most scholars to dismiss mythicist claims concerning Paul. Theissen says "there is broad scholarly consensus that we can best find access to the historical Jesus through the Synoptic tradition." Bart D. Ehrman adds: "To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly." One book argues that if Jesus did not exist, "the origin of the faith of the early Christians remains a perplexing mystery." Eddy and Boyd say the best history can assert is probability, yet the probability of Jesus having existed is so high, Ehrman says "virtually all historians and scholars have concluded Jesus did exist as a historical figure." Historian James Dunn writes: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed". In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Ehrman wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees."

The Christ myth theory is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels. In the 21st century, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this subject. For example, Earl Doherty has written that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are almost entirely fictional. Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century: that the New Testament has no historical value with respect to Jesus's existence, that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan and/or mythical roots.

Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars. Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." Richard A. Burridge states, "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."

Synoptic Gospels

The Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded. These religious gospels – the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Luke – recount the life, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of a Jew named Jesus who spoke Aramaic and wore tzitzit. There are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts because the gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities, and were later translated into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic.

The fourth gospel, the Gospel of John, differs greatly from the Synoptic Gospels and scholars generally consider it to be less historical than the Synoptic Gospels. As James Crossley and Robert J. Myles explain, John "is of limited use for reconstructing the life of the historical Jesus." However, scholars usually agree that John is not entirely without historical value: certain sayings in John are as old as or older than their synoptic counterparts, his representation of the topography around Jerusalem is often superior to that of the synoptics, his testimony that Jesus was executed before, rather than on, Passover, might well be more accurate, and his presentation of Jesus in the garden and the prior meeting held by the Jewish authorities are more historically plausible than their synoptic parallels.

Historians often study the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles when studying the reliability of the gospels, as the Book of Acts was seemingly written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke.

Pauline epistles
The Pauline epistles are dated to between AD 50 and 60 (i.e., approximately twenty to thirty years after the generally accepted time period for the death of Jesus), and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that include information about Jesus.

Although Paul the Apostle provides little biographical information about Jesus and states that he never knew Jesus, he does make it clear that he considers Jesus to have been a real person and a Jew. Moreover, he claims to have met with James, the brother of Jesus.

Non-biblical sources
In addition to biblical sources, there are a number of mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources that have been used in the historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.

Thallos
Biblical scholar Frederick Fyvie Bruce says the earliest mention of Jesus outside the New Testament occurs c. 55 CE from a historian named Thallos. Thallos' history, like the vast majority of ancient literature, has been lost but not before it was quoted by Sextus Julius Africanus (c. 160 – c. 240 CE), a Christian writer, in his History of the World (c. 220). This book likewise was lost, but not before one of its citations of Thallos was taken up by the Byzantine historian George Syncellus in his Chronicle (c. 800). There is no means by which certainty can be established concerning this or any of the other lost references, partial references, and questionable references that mention some aspect of Jesus' life or death, but in evaluating evidence, it is appropriate to note they exist.

Josephus and Tacitus
There are two passages in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus, that are generally considered good evidence.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around AD 93–94, includes two references to the biblical Jesus in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation. Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 ("the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"). Paul references meeting and interacting with James, Jesus' brother, and since this agreement between the different sources supports Josephus' statement, the statement is only disputed by a small number of scholars.

Roman historian Tacitus referred to "Christus" and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written c. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44. Robert E. Van Voorst states that the very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians makes the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe and the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Jesus's crucifixion.

Talmud
Other considerations outside Christendom include the possible mentions of Jesus in the Talmud. The Talmud speaks in some detail of the conduct of criminal cases of Israel whose texts were gathered together from 200 to 500 CE. Johann Maier and Bart D. Ehrman argue this material is too late to be of much use. Ehrman explains that "Jesus is never mentioned in the oldest part of the Talmud, the Mishnah, but appears only in the later commentaries of the Gemara." Jesus is not mentioned by name, but there is a subtle attack on the virgin birth that refers to the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier Pantera (Ehrman says, "In Greek the word for virgin is parthenos"), and a reference to Jesus' miracles as "black magic" learned when he lived in Egypt (as a toddler). Ehrman writes that few contemporary scholars treat this as historical.

Mara bar Serapion
There is only one classical writer who refers positively to Jesus and that is Mara bar Serapion, a Syriac Stoic, who wrote a letter to his son, who was also named Serapion, from a Roman prison. He speaks of the execution of 'the wise king of the Jews' and compares his death to that of Socrates at the hands of the Athenians. He links the death of the 'wise king' to the Jews being driven from their kingdom. He also states that the 'wise king' lives on because of the "new laws he laid down". The dating of the letter is disputed but was probably soon after 73 AD.

Scholars such as Robert Van Voorst see little doubt that the reference to the execution of the "king of the Jews" is about the death of Jesus. Others such as Craig A. Evans see less value in the letter, given its uncertain date, and the ambiguity in the reference.

Critical-historical research
Historical criticism, also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism, is a branch of criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts in order to understand "the world behind the text". The primary goal of historical criticism is to discover the text's primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense. Historical criticism began in the 17th century and gained popular recognition in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Historical reliability of the Gospels
The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Historical reliability is not dependent on a source being inerrant or void of agendas since there are sources that are considered generally reliable despite having such traits (e.g. Josephus). The question of reliability is a matter of ongoing debate.

Historians subject the gospels to critical analysis by differentiating authentic, reliable information from possible inventions, exaggerations, and alterations. Since there are more textual variants (200,000–400,000) than words in the New Testament, scholars use textual criticism to determine which gospel variants could theoretically be taken as original. To answer this question, scholars have to ask who wrote the gospels, when they wrote them, what was their objective in writing them, what sources the authors used, how reliable these sources were, and how far removed in time the sources were from the stories they narrate, or if they were altered later. Scholars may also look into the internal evidence of the documents, to see if, for example, a document has misquoted texts from the Hebrew Tanakh, has made incorrect claims about geography, if the author appears to have hidden information, or if the author has fabricated a prophecy. Finally, scholars turn to external sources, including the testimony of early church leaders, to writers outside the church, primarily Jewish and Greco-Roman historians, who would have been more likely to have criticized the church, and to archaeological evidence.

Quest for the historical Jesus

Since the 18th century, three scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during each specific phase. These quests are distinguished from pre-Enlightenment approaches because they rely on the historical-critical method to study biblical narratives. While textual analysis of biblical sources had taken place for centuries, these quests introduced new methods and specific techniques in the attempt to establish the historical validity of their conclusions.

First quest
The scholarly effort to reconstruct an "authentic" historical picture of Jesus was a product of the Enlightenment skepticism of the late eighteenth century. Bible scholar Gerd Theissen explains that "It was concerned with presenting a historically true life of Jesus that functioned theologically as a critical force over against [established Roman Catholic] Christology." The first scholar to separate the historical Jesus from the theological Jesus in this way was philosopher, writer, classicist, Hebraist and Enlightenment free thinker Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768). Copies of Reimarus' writings were discovered by G. E. Lessing (1729–1781) in the library at Wolfenbüttel where Lessing was the librarian. Reimarus had left permission for his work to be published after his death, and Lessing did so between 1774 and 1778, publishing them as Die Fragmente eines unbekannten Autors (The Fragments of an Unknown Author). Over time, they came to be known as the Wolfenbüttel Fragments after the library where Lessing worked. Reimarus distinguished between what Jesus taught and how he is portrayed in the New Testament. According to Reimarus, Jesus was a political messiah who failed at creating political change and was executed. His disciples then stole the body and invented the story of the resurrection for personal gain. Reimarus' controversial work prompted a response from "the father of historical critical research" Johann Semler in 1779, Beantwortung der Fragmente eines Ungenannten (Answering the Fragments of an Unknown). Semler refuted Reimarus' arguments, but it was of little consequence. Reimarus' writings had already made lasting changes by making it clear criticism could exist independently of theology and faith, and by founding historical Jesus studies within that non-sectarian view.

According to Homer W. Smith, the work of Lessing and others culminated in the Protestant theologian David Strauss's Das Leben Jesu ('The Life of Jesus', 1835), in which Strauss expresses his conclusion that Jesus existed, but that his godship is the result of "a historic nucleus [being] worked over and reshaped into an ideal form by the first Christians under the influence of Old Testament models and the idea of the messiah found in Daniel." The enthusiasm shown during the first quest diminished after Albert Schweitzer's critique of 1906 in which he pointed out various shortcomings in the approaches used at the time. After Schweitzer's Von Reimarus zu Wrede was translated and published in English as The Quest of the Historical Jesus in 1910, the book's title provided the label for the field of study for eighty years.

Second quest
The second quest began in 1953 and introduced a number of new techniques, but faded away in the 1970s.

Third quest
In the 1980s a number of scholars gradually began to introduce new research ideas, initiating a third quest characterized by the latest research approaches. One of the modern aspects of the third quest has been the role of archaeology; James Charlesworth states that modern scholars now want to use archaeological discoveries that clarify the nature of life in Galilee and Judea during the time of Jesus. A further characteristic of the third quest has been the interdisciplinary and global nature of its scholarship. While the first two quests were mostly carried out by European Protestant theologians, a modern aspect of the third quest is the worldwide influx of scholars from multiple disciplines. More recently, historicists have focused their attention on the historical writings associated with the era in which Jesus lived or on the evidence concerning his family.

By the end of the twentieth century, scholar Tom Holmén writes that Enlightenment skepticism had given way to a more "trustful attitude toward the historical reliability of the sources ... [Currently] the conviction of Sanders, (we know quite a lot about Jesus) characterizes the majority of contemporary studies." Reflecting this shift, the phrase "quest for the historical Jesus" has largely been replaced by life of Jesus research.

Demise of authenticity and the "Next Quest"
Since the late 1900s, concerns have been growing about the usefulness of the criteria of authenticity. According to Le Donne, the usage of such criteria is a form of "positivist historiography." According to Chris Keith, a historical Jesus is "ultimately unattainable, but can be hypothesized on the basis of the interpretations of the early Christians, and as part of a larger process of accounting for how and why early Christians came to view Jesus in the ways that they did." According to Keith, "these two models are methodologically and epistemologically incompatible," calling into question the methods and aim of the first model.

In 2021, James Crossley (editor of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus) announced that historical Jesus scholarship now had moved to the era of the Next Quest. The Next Quest has moved on from the criteria, obsessions with the uniqueness of Jesus, and the supersessionism still implicit in scholarly questions of the Jewishness of Jesus. Instead, sober scholarship now focuses on treating the subject matter as part of the wider human phenomenon of religion, cultural comparison, class relations, slave culture and economy, and the social history of historical Jesus scholarship and wider reception histories of the historical Jesus. The book by Crossley and Robert J. Myles, Jesus: A Life in Class Conflict, is indicative of this new tendency.

Textual, source and form-criticism
The first quest, which started in 1778, was almost entirely based on biblical criticism. This took the form of textual and source criticism originally, which were supplemented with form criticism in 1919, and redaction criticism in 1948. Form criticism began as an attempt to trace the history of the biblical material during the oral period before it was written in its current form, and may be seen as starting where textual criticism ends. Form criticism views Gospel writers as editors, not authors. Redaction criticism may be viewed as the child of source criticism and form criticism. and views the Gospel writers as authors and early theologians and tries to understand how the redactor(s) has (have) molded the narrative to express their own perspectives.

Criteria of authenticity
When form criticism questioned the historical reliability of the Gospels, scholars began looking for other criteria. Taken from other areas of study such as source criticism, the "criteria of authenticity" emerged gradually, becoming a distinct branch of methodology associated with life of Jesus research. The criteria are a variety of rules used to determine if some event or person is more or less likely to be historical. These criteria are primarily, though not exclusively, used to assess the sayings and actions of Jesus.

In view of the skepticism produced in the mid-twentieth century by form criticism concerning the historical reliability of the gospels, the burden shifted in historical Jesus studies from attempting to identify an authentic life of Jesus to attempting to prove authenticity. The criteria developed within this framework, therefore, are tools that provide arguments solely for authenticity, not inauthenticity. In 1901, the application of criteria of authenticity began with dissimilarity. It was often applied unevenly with a preconceived goal. In the early decades of the twentieth century, F. C. Burkitt and B. H. Streeter provided the foundation for multiple attestation. The Second Quest introduced the criterion of embarrassment. By the 1950s, coherence was also included. By 1987, D. Polkow lists 25 separate criteria being used by scholars to test for historical authenticity including the criterion of "historical plausibility".

Criticism
A number of scholars have criticized the various approaches used in the study of the historical Jesus—on one hand, for the lack of rigor in research methods; on the other, for being driven by "specific agendas" that interpret ancient sources to fit specific goals. By the 21st century, the "maximalist" approaches of the 19th century, which accepted all the gospels, and the "minimalist" trends of the early 20th century, which totally rejected them, were abandoned and scholars began to focus on what is historically probable and plausible about Jesus.

Baptism and crucifixion
There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings. Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus, but almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts.

Baptism
The existence of John the Baptist within the same time frame as Jesus, and his eventual execution by Herod Antipas is attested to by 1st-century Roman-Jewish historian Josephus and the overwhelming majority of modern scholars view Josephus' accounts of the activities of John the Baptist as authentic. One of the arguments in favor of the historicity of the Baptism of Jesus by John is the criterion of embarrassment, i.e. that it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent, as it implies that Jesus was subservient to John. Another argument used in favour of the historicity of the baptism is that multiple accounts refer to it, usually called the criterion of multiple attestation. Technically, multiple attestation does not guarantee authenticity, but only determines antiquity. However, for most scholars, together with the criterion of embarrassment it lends credibility to the baptism of Jesus by John being a historical event.

Crucifixion
John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment, Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader. Meier states that a number of other criteria – the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e., confirmation by more than one source), the criterion of coherence (i.e., that it fits with other historical elements) and the criterion of rejection (i.e., that it is not disputed by ancient sources) – help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now firmly established that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus – referring to the mentions in Josephus and Tacitus.

Most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable, as do Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan and James Dunn. Although scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it, e.g. both E. P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen support the historicity of the crucifixion, but contend that Jesus did not foretell his own crucifixion, and that his prediction of the crucifixion is a Christian story. Géza Vermes also views the crucifixion as a historical event but believes this was due to Jesus’ challenging of Roman authority. On the other hand, Maurice Casey and John P. Meier state that Jesus did predict his death, and this actually strengthened his followers' belief in his Resurrection.

Other possibly historical elements
In addition to the two historical elements of baptism and crucifixion, scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to various other aspects of the life of Jesus, although there is no universal agreement among scholars on these items:
 * Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD.
 * Jesus lived only in Galilee and Judea: Most scholars reject that there is any evidence that an adult Jesus traveled or studied outside Galilee and Judea. Marcus Borg states that the suggestions that an adult Jesus traveled to Egypt or India are "without historical foundation". John Dominic Crossan states that none of the theories presented to fill the 15–18-year gap between the early life of Jesus and the start of his ministry have been supported by modern scholarship. The Talmud refers to "Jesus the Nazarene" several times and scholars such as Andreas Kostenberger and Robert Van Voorst hold that some of these references are to Jesus. Nazareth is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian gospels portray it as an insignificant village, John 1:46 asking "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Craig S. Keener states that it is rarely disputed that Jesus was from Nazareth, an obscure small village not worthy of invention. Gerd Theissen concurs with that conclusion.
 * Jesus spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.  The languages spoken in Galilee and Judea during the 1st century include the Semitic Aramaic and Hebrew languages as well as Greek, with Aramaic being the predominant language.
 * Jesus called disciples: John P. Meier sees the calling of disciples a natural consequence of the information available about Jesus. N. T. Wright accepts that there were twelve disciples, but holds that the list of their names cannot be determined with certainty. John Dominic Crossan disagrees, stating that Jesus did not call disciples and had an "open to all" egalitarian approach, imposed no hierarchy and preached to all in equal terms. However, James Crossley and Robert J. Myles and the emerging consensus disagree with Crossan, arguing that "we should dispel romantic notions that this movement was proudly egalitarian and progressive in the sense of the 'radical liberalism' of today" and instead point out that the core Twelve may have been "a central committee or politburo with membership sometimes changing."
 * Jesus caused a controversy at the Temple.
 * After his death his disciples continued, and some of his disciples were persecuted.
 * Jesus had a Burial.

Some scholars have proposed further additional historical possibilities such as:
 * An approximate chronology of Jesus can be estimated from non-Christian sources, and confirmed by correlating them with New Testament accounts.
 * Claims about the appearance or ethnicity of Jesus are mostly subjective, based on cultural stereotypes and societal trends rather than on scientific analysis.
 * The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist can be dated approximately from Josephus' references (Antiquities 18.5.2) to a date before AD 28–35.
 * The main topic of his teaching was the Kingdom of God, and he presented this teaching in parables that were surprising and sometimes confounding.
 * Jesus taught an ethic of forgiveness, as expressed in aphorisms such as "turn the other cheek" or "go the extra mile." Within the traditional ethic of "Christian forgiveness" there are some significantly differing views about exactly what type of forgiveness Jesus taught.
 * An emerging scholarly consensus suggests Jesus and his inner-circle claimed "a degree of hardened 'servant' masculinity for themselves as an example to the world."
 * The date of the crucifixion of Jesus was earlier than 36 AD, based on the dates of the prefecture of Pontius Pilate who was governor of Roman Judea from 26 AD until 36 AD.

Portraits of the historical Jesus
Scholars involved in the third and next quests for the historical Jesus have constructed a variety of portraits and profiles for Jesus. However, there is little scholarly agreement on the portraits, or the methods used in constructing them. The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in the quest for the historical Jesus have often differed from each other, and from the image portrayed in the gospel accounts. These portraits include that of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change, but there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it. There are, however, overlapping attributes among the various portraits, and scholars who differ on some attributes may agree on others. The conception of a "Historical Jesus" is limited to the abductions from modern scholars on the sources and the results can only produce fragments of what the "real Jesus" or "Jesus of history" may have been. Such conceptions are merely a sketch or model which may inform about but never will be the real Jesus of history; similar to how models exist in the natural sciences that inform about phenomena without specifying a particular object. W.R. Herzog has stated that: "What we call the historical Jesus is the composite of the recoverable bits and pieces of historical information and speculation about him that we assemble, construct, and reconstruct. For this reason, the historical Jesus is, in Meier's words, 'a modern abstraction and construct.'"

Contemporary scholarship, representing the "third quest" and the "next quest" places Jesus firmly in the Jewish tradition. Jesus was a Jewish preacher who taught that he was the path to salvation, everlasting life, and the Kingdom of God. A primary criterion used to discern historical details in the "third quest" is that of plausibility, relative to Jesus' Jewish context and to his influence on Christianity. Contemporary scholars of the "third quest" include E. P. Sanders, Géza Vermes, Gerd Theissen, Christoph Burchard, and John Dominic Crossan. In contrast to the Schweitzerian view, certain North American scholars, such as Burton Mack, advocate for a non-eschatological Jesus, one who is more of a Cynic sage than an apocalyptic preacher.

Given that Jesus was poor, long-established historiographical approaches associated with the study of the poor in the past, such as microhistory, are relevant to the study of his life.

Mainstream views
Despite the significant differences among scholars on what constitutes a suitable portrait for Jesus, the mainstream views supported by a number of scholars may be grouped together based on certain distinct, primary themes. These portraits often include overlapping elements, and there are also differences among the followers of each portrait. The subsections below present the main portraits that are supported by multiple mainstream scholars.

Apocalyptic prophet

The apocalyptic prophet view primarily emphasizes Jesus preparing his fellow Jews for the End Times. The first proponent of this hypothesis was Albert Schweitzer in his 1906 book The Quest of the Historical Jesus.

The works of E. P. Sanders and Maurice Casey place Jesus within the context of Jewish eschatological tradition. Bart D. Ehrman aligns himself with Schweitzer's view that Jesus expected an apocalypse during his own generation, and he bases some of his views on the argument that the earliest gospel sources (for which he assumes Markan priority) and the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, chapters 4 and 5, probably written by the end of AD 52, present Jesus as far more apocalyptic than other Christian sources produced towards the end of the 1st century, contending that the apocalyptic messages were progressively toned down. Dale C. Allison Jr. does not see Jesus as advocating specific timetables for the End Times, but sees him as preaching his own doctrine of "apocalyptic eschatology" derived from post-exilitic Jewish teachings, and views the apocalyptic teachings of Jesus as a form of asceticism.

The characterization of Jesus as an apocalyptic or millenarian prophet can also be combined with other categories, such as in the work of James Crossley and Robert J. Myles (see below) who regard the end-time teaching of Jesus as a culturally credible way of responding to social and material upheaval in Galilee and Judea.

Charismatic healer
The charismatic healer portrait positions Jesus as a pious and holy man in the view of Géza Vermes, whose profile draws on the Talmudic representations of Jewish figures such as Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the Circle Drawer and presents Jesus as a Hasid. Marcus Borg views Jesus as a charismatic "man of the spirit", a mystic or visionary who acts as a conduit for the "Spirit of God". Borg sees this as a well-defined religious personality type, whose actions often involve healing. Borg sees Jesus as a non-eschatological figure who did not intend to start a new religion, but his message set him at odds with the Jewish powers of his time based on the "politics of holiness". Both Sanders and Casey agree that Jesus was also a charismatic healer in addition to an apocalyptic prophet.

Cynic philosopher
In the Cynic philosopher profile, Jesus is presented as a Cynic, a traveling sage and philosopher preaching a cynical and radical message of change to abolish the existing hierarchical structure of the society of his time. In John Dominic Crossan's view Jesus was crucified not for religious reasons but because his social teachings challenged the seat of power held by the Jewish authorities. Crossan believes Galilee was a place where Greek and Jewish culture heavily interacted, with Gadara, a day's walk from Nazareth, being a center of Cynic philosophy. Burton Mack also holds that Jesus was a Cynic whose teachings were so different from those of his time that they shocked the audience and forced them to think, but Mack views his death as accidental and not due to his challenge to Jewish authority.

Jewish Messiah
The Jewish Messiah portrait of N. T. Wright places Jesus within the Jewish context of "exile and return", a notion he uses to build on his view of the 1st-century concept of hope. Wright believes that Jesus was the Messiah and argues that the Resurrection of Jesus was a physical and historical event. Wright's portrait of Jesus is closer to the traditional Christian views than many other scholars, and when he departs from the Christian tradition, his views are still close to them. Like Wright, Markus Bockmuehl, Peter Stuhlmacher and Brant J. Pitre support the view that Jesus came to announce the end of the Jewish spiritual exile and usher in a new messianic era in which God would improve this world through the faith of his people.

Prophet of social change
The prophet of social change portrait positions Jesus primarily as someone who challenged the traditional social structures of his time. Gerd Theissen sees three main elements to the activities of Jesus as he effected social change: his positioning as the Son of man, the core group of disciples that followed him, and his localized supporters as he journeyed through Galilee and Judea. Richard A. Horsley goes further and presents Jesus as a more radical reformer who initiated a grassroots movement. David Kaylor's ideas are close to those of Horsley, but have a more religious focus and base the actions of Jesus on covenant theology and his desire for justice. Elisabeth Fiorenza has presented a feminist perspective which sees Jesus as a social reformer whose actions such as the acceptance of women followers resulted in the liberation of some women of his time. James Crossley and Robert J. Myles advocate a nuanced historical materialist perspective of Jesus as a religious organizer who responded to the intersecting material conditions of Galilee and Judea in culturally credible ways such as through intra-Jewish legal debate and a revolutionary millenarian proclamation.

S. G. F. Brandon, Fernando Bermejo Rubio, and Reza Aslan argue that Jesus was an anti-Roman revolutionary that tried to overthrow Roman rule in Palestine and re-establish the Kingdom of Israel.

Rabbi
The rabbi portrait advances the idea that Jesus was simply a rabbi who sought to reform certain ideas within Judaism. This idea can be traced to the late nineteenth century, when various liberal Jews sought to emphasize the Jewish nature of Jesus, and saw him as something of a proto-Reform Jew. Perhaps the most prominent of these was Rabbi Emil G. Hirsch, who in The Doctrine of Jesus wrote:

"We quote the rabbis of the Talmud; shall we then, not also quote the rabbi of Bethlehem? Shall not he in whom there burned, if it burned in anyone, the spirit and the light of Judaism, be reclaimed by the synagogue?"

Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography, painted Jesus as a devout student of John the Baptist who came to see it as his mission to restore the Temple to purity, and purge the Romans and the corrupt priests from its midst. Jaroslav Pelikan, in The Illustrated Jesus Through the Centuries stated:

"Alongside Immanuel, 'God with us' – the Hebrew title given to the child in the prophecy of Isaiah (7:14) and applied by Matthew (1:23) to Jesus, but not used to address him except in such apostrophes as the medieval antiphon Veni, Veni, Immanuel that forms the epigraph to this chapter – four Aramaic words appear as titles for Jesus: Rabbi, or teacher; Amen, or prophet; Messias, or Christ; and Mar, or Lord."

The most neutral and least controversial of these words is probably Rabbi, along with the related Rabbouni. Except for two passages, the Gospels apply the Aramaic word only to Jesus; and if we conclude that the title "teacher" or "master" (didaskalos in Greek) was intended as a translation of that Aramaic name, it seems safe to say that it was as Rabbi that Jesus was known and addressed.

The conservative evangelical scholar Andreas J. Köstenberger in Jesus as Rabbi in the Fourth Gospel also reached the conclusion that Jesus was seen by his contemporaries as a rabbi.

In 2012, the book Kosher Jesus by Orthodox Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was published in which Boteach takes the position that Jesus was a wise and learned Torah-observant Jewish rabbi. Boteach says he was a beloved member of the Jewish community. At the same time, Jesus is said to have despised the Romans for their cruelty, and to have fought them courageously. The book states that the Jews had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder of Jesus, but rather that the blame for his trial and killing lies with the Romans and Pontius Pilate. Boteach states clearly that he does not believe in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. At the same time, Boteach argues that "Jews have much to learn from Jesus – and from Christianity as a whole – without accepting Jesus' divinity. There are many reasons for accepting Jesus as a man of great wisdom, beautiful ethical teachings, and profound Jewish patriotism." He concludes by writing, as to Judeo-Christian values, that "the hyphen between Jewish and Christian values is Jesus himself."

Non-mainstream views
Other portraits have been presented by individual scholars:
 * Ben Witherington supports the "Wisdom Sage" view and states that Jesus is best understood as a teacher of wisdom who saw himself as the embodiment or incarnation of God's Wisdom.
 * John P. Meier's portrait of Jesus as the Marginal Jew is built on the view that Jesus knowingly marginalized himself in a number of ways, first by abandoning his profession as a carpenter and becoming a preacher with no means of support, then arguing against the teachings and traditions of the time while he had no formal rabbinic training.
 * Robert Eisenman proposed that James the Just was the Teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and that the image of Jesus of the gospels was constructed by the Apostle Paul as pro-Roman propaganda.
 * Hyam Maccoby proposed that Jesus was a Pharisee, that the positions ascribed to the Pharisees in the Gospels are very different from what we know of them, and in fact their opinions were very similar to those ascribed to Jesus. Harvey Falk also sees Jesus as proto-Pharisee or Essene.
 * Morton Smith views Jesus as a magician, a view based on the presentation of Jesus in later Jewish sources and on (dubious) apocryphal writings such as the Secret Gospel of Mark.
 * Leo Tolstoy saw Jesus as championing Christian anarchism (although Tolstoy never actually used the term "Christian anarchism"; reviews of his book following its publication in 1894 coined the term.)
 * It has been suggested by psychiatrists Oskar Panizza,  George de Loosten, William Hirsch, William Sargant, Anthony Storr,   Raj Persaud, psychologist Charles Binet-Sanglé and others that Jesus had a mental disorder or psychiatric condition. This theory is based on the fact that the Gospel of Mark (Mark 3:21) reports that When his family heard this they went out to restrain him, for they said, ″He is out of his mind.″ Psychologist Władysław Witwicki states that Jesus had difficulties communicating with the outside world and suffered from dissociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder), which made him a schizothymic or even schizophrenic type.  In 1998–2000 Polish author Leszek Nowak (born 1962) from Poznań authored a study in which, based on his own history of delusions of mission and overvalued ideas, and information communicated in the Gospels, made an attempt at reconstructing Jesus’ psyche with the view of the apocalyptic prophet.

title: Historical Jesus


text:
Talk:November 9

Really?
''For a topic to be notable enough to be on this list, there must be an article on it. When one exists for this person (with evidence of his notability in the article) then he can be placed here -- Mason11987''

Really? Says who? You? And you make the rules here? This is your article? 131.30.121.23 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is pretty much a common standard by editors working on the date articles. You must agree that if all people regardless of notability were allowed to be added to this list then it would become so long that it would prove quite useless.  Also, according to WP:CITE you can't provide original research, which is what you are doing if you don't supply citations for your additions to this list.  Since this list MUST be limited in some respects, it seems most useful to limit it with respect to our WP:Notability standard.  If a subject isn't notable enough to have it's own article, why should it be included on a list populated solely by people who have their own articles?  There is a note at the bottom of the births section (a similar note is at the bottom of the births section of every date article I believe) that expresses a commonly held idea:

I point you towards the first line, added by some other editor. With exception to the one other red link I just removed every birth, death or event on this list has an article associated with it. I invite you to visit every other date page on wikipedia to see if this is concurrent to what the dozens (perhaps hundreds) of other editors adding to these sections agree with. I briefly scanned Nov-1st through nov 9th and found one other red link in the birth-death section and I removed it. Many editors ( to point out two examples from the last 3 or so days) have tried to formulate the best possible way of making these pages as useful and managable as possible.

I don't make rules, I'm trying to help out with one of a group of the most widely abused and misused pages on the wiki to try to make it useful by allowing only events/people that are notable. It would seem foolish to think that there shouldn't be a notability standard after all. Or else why wouldn't someone add their pet lizard steve? Or their cousin bob? The date pages aren't a place to decide notability of an article as it can't be argued well (or usefully) here. If there IS notability, then an article not simply stating notability but proving it via some of the suggestions on WP:Notability will show that. Until then I don't see why it should be on this list.

Also, while Google results aren't really "proof" of notability, the fact that there are zero matches for ( "Jake Bottero" philosopher ) kind of raises some doubts as to how "notable" he is. You'd think someone would have written about him if he was. Chris M. 22:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Muriel Degauque...
"Muriel Degauque becomes the first Belgian female suicide bomber."

Does that means she was the first Belgian suicide bomber, the first female suicide bomber, or the first Belgian female suicide bomber (was there already a Belgian male suicide bomber)? Kingturtle 14:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I didn't write that, but I assume that since the line says she was "the first Belgian female suicide bomber", I think that the writer meant that she was the first Belgian female suicide bomber, not the first Belgian suicide bomber or the first female suicide bomber. Then again, I don't know, and I might not have understood your question. --Kevin (TALK) 19:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul McCartney
Under Events or Deaths for 1966, should a reference to the Paul is dead conspiracy be made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.61.26 (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, because it is a conspiracy theory with no supporting evidence, and therefore not an important world event. McCartney is definitely alive. Jim Michael (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

iPhone delete
iPhone was removed by me. Namely because one, that is a future event. And second it's a electronic device not a birth, death or event that has a great effect etc. GRiM-reapa 10:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Civil edit summaries
With reference to this, a reminder to comply with WP:CIVIL in the writing of edit summaries. Codharris (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

September 11 attacks
This article has nothing to do with them. Therefore removed the intro stuff. Wallie (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it. What was this guy eating? (talk) 11 September 2011 (EST)

November Nine
There needs to be a hat note for the article November Nine, my edit to this effect was reverted due to it not having "global notability". The biggest poker tournament in the world, with one of the biggest prize pools of any tournament of any sport in the world is not globally notable? There should be a hat note irrelevant of notability anyway, since they are the same article name but with different spelling, very confusing. -AlexTG (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Poker tournaments are not important world events. For the vast majority of people, they are completely irrelevant. Jim Michael (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

WWF Montreal Screwjob
I know professional wrestling is a niche portal, but if any event deserves to be here, the most famous deviation from script and betrayal of a wrestler ever is it, right? Just throwing it out there as plausible... article's locked or I'd have added it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.152.115 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, there has to be a Wiki article about it, or a mention of it in a Wiki article. Can you provide a link to a Wiki page where we can read about it? By the way, this article is no longer protected, but if you're not logged in, or you're a Wiki user who doesn't have sufficient credibility (I forget what the exact terminology is), your edit will be held for approval. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Feline Follies
Felix the Cat made his debut on Nov 9 1919, becoming one of the first cartoon characters made 2601:646:C600:D270:C82B:E12F:19C9:66EB (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference for this claim? Kiwipete (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Book by Colleen Hoover
Not sure where this should be referenced, but November 9 is also the title of one of Colleen Hoover’s more popular books. Damndeens123 (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:November 9


text:
Rod Smart

Torrold DeShaun "Rod" Smart (born January 9, 1977) is a former professional American football running back. He played college football for Western Kentucky. He was originally signed by the San Diego Chargers of the National Football League (NFL) as an undrafted free agent after the 2000 NFL Draft.

Smart first played a professional football season with the Las Vegas Outlaws of the original XFL, where he was known by the nickname "He Hate Me". He then joined the Edmonton Eskimos of the Canadian Football League (CFL) before signing with the Philadelphia Eagles, all within the same year (2001). He then spent four seasons (2002–2005) with the Carolina Panthers, including winning the NFC Championship in 2003. He also spent time with the Oakland Raiders in 2006, as well as Team Tennessee of the never-launched All American Football League.

College career
Smart was born in Lakeland, Florida, one of several children. His parents were known to give Rod and his siblings unusual nicknames, including "Bone Bone" and "Fat Girl." He attended Lakeland High School, where he played both running back and cornerback for the football team, and also ran for the track team.

Smart attended Western Kentucky University, where he played for the Hilltoppers football team. He ended his career at Western Kentucky ranked tenth all-time in school history with 2,305 rushing yards on 356 carries with 21 touchdowns. He also recorded 115 receiving yards, 279 kickoff return yards, and 14 yards on punt returns. He started all 11 games as a senior in 1999 and was a first-team All-Gateway Conference selection. In his senior season, he led the team with 1,249 yards rushing and 10 touchdowns on 188 carries, for a 6.4 yard average, while his all purpose yards and rushing yards ranked fifth and sixth respectively in school history for a single season. He graduated with a degree in kinesiology.

Track and field
Smart was also a member of the track team at Western Kentucky, where he specialized in the 60 meters and 100 meters.

San Diego Chargers
Smart signed with the San Diego Chargers as an undrafted rookie free agent in 2000. He finished training camp with the team, but was released by the Chargers prior to the start of the 2000 NFL season.

Las Vegas Outlaws
In the Spring of 2001, Smart joined the Las Vegas Outlaws of the XFL and adopted the nickname of "He Hate Me" which he wore on the back of his uniform. He finished the season ranked second in the league in rushing with 555 yards. He also finished third in average rushing yards (3.8 yards per carry), and scored three touchdowns over the course of the one and only XFL season. He led the Outlaws in rushing, and was second on the team in receiving with 27 catches for 245 yards.

Of the over 300 players to don an XFL uniform during its lone 2001 season, league executives noted that while most saw the league solely as a way to further their own careers in hopes of returning to the NFL, Smart fully embraced the league's approach to football and sports entertainment. In the documentary This Was the XFL, Smart stated that had the league survived for a second season, he was certain to have returned and had no intention of trying out for an NFL or CFL position before the XFL collapsed.

"He Hate Me"
"He Hate Me" is the phrase Smart chose to place on the back of his Las Vegas Outlaws football jersey. Though most sports organizations allow only a surname or first initial and surname to be placed on the back of a jersey, XFL rules permitted players' jerseys to be stitched with whatever words they wanted. The Outlaws happened to be playing in the league's first nationally televised game (the one that would, ultimately, be the most widely watched game, as the league's viewership plummeted after that point), and the league's choice of camera angles more akin to video games meant that Smart's jersey was prominently featured on the telecasts. The jersey was the XFL's best seller.

Smart explained the origin of the grammatically non-standard phrase in a January 30, 2004 article with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel as, "Basically, my opponent is going to hate me. After I win, he's gonna hate me. It is what it is. It's a saying I was saying when I'd feel something wasn't going my way. For example, (when) I was on the squad in Vegas and coach was putting other guys in, (if) I felt I'm better than them, you know, hey, 'he hate me.' See what I'm saying? Give me a chance. That's all I ask. It came from the heart. Within. The way I felt. I feel as if everyone hates me, from my mom to my dad and even my brothers and sisters everyone "Hates Me". My buddy Greg Kates always used to use it, so I took it from him."

Smart stated that he originally planned to use a different nickname on the back of his jersey every week of the season but abandoned that plan when "He Hate Me" became a national sensation. He and his agent also credit the nickname with getting NFL scouts to notice him after the XFL collapsed.

When Smart and the Outlaws played divisional rival the Los Angeles Xtreme, two Xtreme players put "I Hate He" and "I Hate He Too" on the back of their jerseys to express their disdain for Smart. In a later game between those two teams, those two players changed their nicknames to "Still Hate He" and "Still Hate He Too". The curious maxim also caught the eye of American audiences (as well as Smart's future Carolina Panthers teammate Jake Delhomme, who named one of his thoroughbreds, "She Hate Me"). The title of Spike Lee's 2004 film She Hate Me was also inspired by Smart's nickname.

Edmonton Eskimos
After the end of the XFL season Smart signed with the Edmonton Eskimos of the Canadian Football League (CFL). He played one pre-season game for Edmonton before being released in August 2001.

Philadelphia Eagles
The Philadelphia Eagles of the NFL signed Smart to their practice roster on October 2, 2001. He was promoted to the active roster on November 19, 2001, appeared in six regular season games, mainly on special teams, and rushed for six yards on two carries. The Eagles waived Smart at the end of their 2002 training camp.

Carolina Panthers
In September, 2002, Smart was claimed off waivers by the Carolina Panthers. He played in all 16 regular season games, and led the Panthers with 24 special teams tackles. He produced at least one special teams tackle in 14 games en route to recording the second-highest number of special team tackles in a season in team history.

In 2003, Smart played in all 16 Panthers' games for the second consecutive season. For the first time in a Panthers' uniform, he was utilized as a kick returner, in addition to his special teams coverage duties. He averaged 23.1 yards on 41 kickoff returns for 947 yards, including a 100-yard touchdown against the New Orleans Saints on October 5, 2003. He finished the Panthers' 2003 season ranked second with 14 special teams tackles and recorded his first career blocked punt. He also rushed for 49 yards on 20 carries and caught three passes for 11 yards on offense. He contributed to a Panthers' special teams coverage unit that ranked fifth in the NFL in opponents' kickoff return average. In Super Bowl XXXVIII, Smart returned four punts for 74 yards.

Smart's 2004 season was cut short due to injuries. He played in the first three games of the season for the Panthers, but was inactive for the next four before being placed on injured reserve with an injured left knee on November 3, 2004. Despite his limited action in 2004, he averaged 21.1 yards on eight kickoff returns for 169 yards, with the longest return being 33 yards. He also rushed four yards on three carries, and caught one pass for five yards, on offense.

In 2005, Smart returned to the Panthers healthy, played in 12 games, and led the Panthers with 29 kickoff returns for 615 yards (for a 21.2 yard average). He also recorded nine tackles and one fumble recovery for the Panthers' kick coverage unit. After four seasons, Smart was released by the Panthers on March 1, 2006.

Oakland Raiders
On May 4, 2006, Smart signed with the Oakland Raiders as a free agent. Being injured for part of the 2006 pre-season, he failed to make the final, 53-man Raiders roster on September 2, 2006.

All American Football League
Smart was selected by Team Tennessee during the inaugural draft of the All American Football League on January 26, 2008. However, when the league was postponed for its inaugural season, all players were released from their contracts, leaving him a free agent.

Post football
After being released by the Oakland Raiders, Smart became a personal trainer, before appearing in Don’t Blame The Lettuce. He currently lives in Charlotte, North Carolina and purportedly works as a high school guidance counselor. He also owns his own business, SmartSize.

Personal life
Smart is a fan of 1970s funk and soul music bands such as Earth, Wind and Fire, Heatwave, and Parliament. He was the "" but managed to keep his grades well above average with all A's and some B's at Lakeland Senior High School. His nickname growing up and in high school was "The Rocket" after Raghib Ismail of Notre Dame, because of his speed, running a 4.25 second 40-yard dash. Smart's younger brother is Chris Rainey, former Lakeland High School standout running back and former National Football League player. Smart's first cousin is former Philadelphia Eagles receiver Freddie Mitchell.

The 2004 movie name She Hate Me, was based on the phrase he placed on the back of his XFL jersey.

On June 18, 2019, Lancaster County, South Carolina, sheriff's deputies declared Smart "missing and endangered" after his family reported that his whereabouts had been unknown since June 12. He was reported by the sheriff's office as having been found safe later the same day he was reported missing.

title: Rod Smart