Jump to content

Talk:September 29

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

September 29: Michaelmas (Western Christianity)

Willie Mays
Willie Mays
More anniversaries:


Brief description needed for each entry

[edit]

To whoever: please add an explanation for any births or deaths you add of people who don't have an article - especially if they are currently only 17 yrs old. DJ Clayworth 14:41, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dylan

[edit]

I've changed the 1961 Dylan reference to the article by Robert SHELTON instead of Sheldon. Subtle difference in spelling, big difference in people. Jason 18:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

[edit]

For the 2nd time, I have added this. Please, all religious Christian fanatics, DO NOT remove it. This is the estimated date of Jesus' birth, not just a made up date! And do not change it to BC either, as the terms BC and AD are no longer used. You should use the terms BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era).

5 BCE - Jesus of Nazareth (This is the estimated date of birth, based on research and facts, although it is formally celebrated on 25th December).

I heard Jesus was born in spring around 7 BCE. Igor Skoglund

(Source: http://www.new-life.net/chrtms10.htm)

Regardless, the issue appears to be covered in Munk, Linda. (1997) The Devil's Mousetrap: Redemption and Colonial American Literature. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195114949. I placed a disclaimer in the birth section to prevent people from continuing to add the date. There are many different dates suggested for the birth of Christ, and they all conflict with one another. The only thing people can agree on, was the fact that if the historical Christ existed, then it is certain that he was not born on December 25. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note on the statement that I was not entirely correct: In the entry, there was no support for the dob of Jesus on September 29. Per WP:DAYS any entry must be supported by a linked article. The linked article (Jesus Christ) does not mention September 29. So in that regard, I was 100% correct. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but aren't you appealing to a proposed guideline? Anyway, I have no real position on the matter other than attempting to end the dispute. I think the disclaimer does that, but as you point out, it's so esoteric that it doesn't even appear in a current article. It might actually help if we can find the names of the sects that believe Christ was born on this day; That information may be available, however, I suspect there are many, many dates like this, and we probably don't want to put disclaimers on all of them! So, what to do? If the disclaimer prevents editors from repeatedly adding the date for the short-term, then I say keep it for now, but obviously, we need a better solution, preferably one that links to an article. And, in if the information can't be added to Jesus Christ, we probably shouldn't keep it, but I'm pretty sure we can add it. Part of the problem with the current Wikipedia culture is that editors are too quick to delete instead of helping to research and add information. Viriditas (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The use of a condescending tone with words like "religious Christian fanatics" is quite ironic, especially when it comes from someone who sounds like a "politically correct athiestic non-religion fanactic". Where do you get off stating so unequivically that the terms "BC" and "AD" are "no longer used"? I don't remember seeing a law passed anywhere to that effect. I have no problem using the terms BC and AD, and I resent someone telling me that I'm not allowed to use them because they find their connection to a religiously significant person to be culturally offensive. Using "AD" and "BC" is no worse than saying "Merry Christmas" to someone who isn't of a Christian faith in the period leading up to December 25th. Or have you unilaterally decided that the term "Merry Christmas" is "no longer used" either?

Having said that, I will acknowledge that there are terms that are exceptionally offensive, and are to be avoided at all costs. Examples would be offensive names used to describe members of a racial group, a religious group, or persons of a particular sexual orientation. I don't think that referring to the current year as "2010 AD" is anywhere nearly as offensive as any of those. 66.59.184.226 (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I (sorry, my name is Tina-Bella and my email is tinabelb@yahoo.com should you want the summary) may, I would like to contribute to the birth of Christ, our Lord. Definitely not 25/12, more likely anywhere between 11/9 and mid/10, and around 4BC. (At that time they still used BC and AD and I use it for clarification purposes.) Reason for my certainty is that my husband has been doing intensive research on this subject for more than 25years, and we believe now the date could have been 29/9 - or at least, that is the day we will commemorate in public from 2019 onwards, due to the fact that the Jewish Religious Calendar is different from the Roman Calendar on which our Calendar is based, we will keep to the date which is mid-stream between 11/9 and 15/10. Why are we so sure? Because we followed the clues to the puzzle in the Bible. And by that I don't mean the astrological clues, but the actual dating clues given to us. Anyone want those clues they are free to contact me, and we will provide a summary with everything. The clues include various facts and can be followed from Luke 1. Definitely no 25/12 'Christmas' any longer. James 4:17 tells us that if we know the right thing to do and we don't do it, then it is sin.. What do you think is right in this case? Keeping the celebration of the birth of Jesus on a Pagan Holy Day, (25/12) or remembering Him on a day which is recognised as His day of birth? Why should we recognise and remember His day of birth? Is YOUR birthday important to you? More-over, was it important to God that you have been born? Yes, it was, or else you wouldn't have been born.  ;) Yes, it is important then, to celebrate the birth of our Lord, because it also shows the coming of the Lord, when He returns. Amen.105.226.87.30 (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)<the Bible from Luke 1, follow the clues></ref>[reply]

Music

[edit]

I have removed 2 music related entries from the Events section. Release dates of albums and songs is not a notible event. If you feel they are notible please discuss.

Removed Events:

Grouf(talk • contribs) 21:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008 drop in dow

[edit]

The 777 point drop in the DOW average is not of particular notability in the context of the life of the average. While it is indeed a record point drop, its impact is not the same as other smaller point drops that were a higher percentage of the total. This is reinforced by the fact that the average rebounded by 485 points the next day. This event should not be included here. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and yet, the economic implact of this news will be felt for decades.
I completely disagree.

I came her looking for Uragurian acts of terrorism, where people were killed, and it seems that it is also insignificant. http://terrorismoenuruguay.wordpress.com/

Yada yada yada, as the light goes out... While elsewhere on Wikipedia, others disagree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_daily_changes_in_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.200.41.67 (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011

[edit]
      Someone has added the vicotry of the Tampa Bay Rays and the collapse of the Boston Red Sox here.  But, didn't this happen on September 28 and not September 29?

L. Thomas W. (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)L. Thomas W. L. Thomas W. (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on September 29. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous errors

[edit]

Several entries under "births" do not agree with the actual articles.

For example, the article on Caravaggio says he was born on the 28th, not the 29th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:777C:C750:100E:3E2F:15DD:50CA (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Food, and Hearts

[edit]

I know today is World Heart Day.

I also note that the UN’s list of International Days tells us it’s International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste.

Is it worth inserting it into the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuddy2977 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_29&oldid=1221784989"