Talk:Jesus

Recent Archive log

Complete archive key

• Talk:Jesus/Archive 97 Removal of spurious representations of Jesus' appearance, trilemma, Mandaean views,scripture removed from historical Jesus section, Vanadalism, Pictures of Jesus, The Truths About Yeshua, Ehrman on harmonies
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 98 Proposal, Possible NPOV Violation in the Geneology Section, first paragraph, at least three years in Jesus' Ministry, this article is too big.
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 99 Literature to be mentioned, Timeline of birth, four gospels, lead; nontrinitarianism, historical Jesus, Jesus as myth, Manichaeism, year of jesus's birth, Edit at top of Jesus page, Colored Yeshua, Image of Jesus which currently exists, Proposal
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 100 Historical Jesus, The To-Do Section, commenting out instead of deleting, 2008 Islamic movie on Jesus, Historical section/Christian views section, Laundry list of non-history scholars and works (alternative proposal), Its latin, isnt it?, this page may display a horizontal scroll bar in some browsers, Proposal on archives, First Section, The historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 101 Edit war over capitalization, Historical Evidence for Jesus' Homosexuality, Carlaude's Majority view, What exactly did Jesus save us from and how?; Carlaude's Majority view part two., Title, PRJS, Dazed and Confused, Why was Jesus baptised?, Dates, Infobox vs. the historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 102 religion founder, Other parameters, He is not God But rather a Demigod, Heavily christian-centric article, Jesus' Birthdate, Jesus in Scientology, Jesus name - Yeshua in Hebrew, means "Salvation" in English
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 103 Writing clean-up, Jesus name in Sanskrit, Reforem Judaism, Jesus and Manichaeism, Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche, Recent removal, NPOV, Detail about Buddhist views of Jesus that does not make sense, The Religious perspectives section
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 104 Black Jesus, "Autobiography" of Jesus, Genealogy - Via What Father?, Addition to "Genealogy & Family", Resurrection, according to whom?, Bhavishya Purana, Christian history category, Quick Comment, BC/BCE?, The Truth, Was he any good at his day job?, In Popular Culture, jesus picture, views on Jesus and Muhamma, Occupation, New Dead Sea Discovery- Gabriel's Revelation, Some comments
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 105 Genealogy "reloaded", Place of birth, Which religions?, was jesus ever bar miztvahed?, Bot report : Found duplicate references !, Jesus and the lost tomb, Some believe that Jesus was of middle eastern ethnicity, and not a caucasian, Mispelled cat at the bottom of this talk page, Harmony, Dating system, "Transliteration"
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 106 8 B.C., ref name="HC13", Cause of death, Renewed Discussion Concerning AD/CE debate

Subpage Activity Log

• Discussion on Judaism's views moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus.
• Buried vs. entombed," alleged "lack of sources" archived to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro.
• New subpage created, Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus, with several models of the historical Jesus and a list of sources.
• Baptism, blasphemy and sedition discussions moved to Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate.
• Sudden move of Christ: discussion moved to Talk:Christ.
• Disputed tag and "Christian Mythology": moved to [Christian Mythology Talk] for relevancy reasons
• User:Andrew c/Jesus: sorting data b/w New Testament view on Jesus' life, Christian views of Jesus#Life, and Jesus#Life and teachings based on the Gospels.

BCE

This rubbish has got to stop. It's not widely used, it's flawed and hypocritical. Unless you're using something else for the names of the days of the week, you're a hypocrit. I demand another consensus, this time not one full of left wing pov pushers. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus does not arise by demand or by personal attacks or lack of assumptions of good faith. The most that kinds of arguments will get you is a block for disruption. Let me gently direct your attention to our policies: WP:ERA and WP:EDITWAR. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia is neutral, so there is no point in saying "the year of OUR LORD" (AD) or "the year before OUR MESSIAH" (BC) except within a Christian context. While Christ is of central importance to Christianity, Christianity does not have a monopoly on Jesus. The decision to use both BCE/CE and BC/AD covers both contexts. As for BCE/CE not being widely used, it is widely used in academic circles (guess where we get our sources from?), and it is finding increased use elsewhere. If you refuse to get this, I recommend you leave and go waste Conservapedia's time and bandwidth. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OK so what is your alternative for monday BC AD has never been an issue since people like you come along and create problems out of no where. BC AD never offended anyone. IT's part of our language and you altering it has to be the most inflammatory thing to date. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you've proven your hypocracy in more than one field. Suggesting to me conservapedia. my assuming socialists are supporters of BCE is just as equal to your assumption that all BC supporters are American Conservative Christians. Plain daft and wrong. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Dude, Alexandre8, you gotta stop ripping up articles man, unless you get a proper vote. It doesn't matter if you are right or not. This guy is going everywhere and ripping out articles having a BCE manor of style. Jasonasosa (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that people first went around ripping up AD articles. This is no chicken or egg. The chicken came first here. Alexandre8 (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And where are they today? hm? Probably where you're going to end up. Jasonasosa (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

They BCE pushers won, that's where they are today, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Alexandre8 (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it’s comical that we humans have been arguing about CE vrs AD for the past century when God is not even thinking about it, since time is irrelevant to Him. While we wait for time to go by, He just Is at all times. Jasonasosa (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Plus, s far as I can tell, BCE and CE were first used by Christians and by the Church. This article uses both systems, so it is clearly respectful of both. I am always fascinated by dogmatists who insist it is "either/or," that it must be one or the other. And what on earth does socialism have to do with this? Jesus was a socialist after all. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't twist words. This particular edit has funily enough nothing to do with jesus. We are examining wording, not content. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

To keep things short, please see Talk:Jesus/Archive_details and all the archives that contain AD/BC/BCE/CE discussions. In short, this is not going to change. And I really really wonder what this has to do with "left-wing" or "socialist". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It is going to change. Just not very soon. --Zundark (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to fully protect this page because edit wars are occuring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiouscorey (talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There has been no edit to the article for 7 days. That's not a current edit war. We don't apply full protection preemptively. See WP:NO-PREEMPT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Lineage of prophets

Template on Lineage of prophet 'Six Islamic Prophets' is well designed and placed in article Islamic view of Jesus after lot of discussion. Jesus is one of prominent prophets and as precursor he is narrated in context with Islam in this article also. To place the template in this article will bring home this fact as well make Jesus position clear to all common reader. Hope most will agree to it.--Md iet (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think 2 editors reverted that, and I would be 20% for including it, 80% for not having it because Jesus is not a central figure in Islam. Template looks good, but is not essential to this page. Sorry. History2007 (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Md iet, do you already forget the lengthy discussion we had about including this chart a year or two ago? We agreed that in the context of this article it violates NOR. This article mentions the Islamic view in the lead, has a section, and a link to another article, so it certainly makes the importance of Jesus to Muslims clear to all readers already! I remember that you made the same argument the last time you kept inserting your graphic in this article. Do you really forget all the objections? Then, please just go back to the archived talk and refresh your memory. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the discussion at the Jesus in Islam article was last year and did not end with a consensus. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"Most"

"Most critical historians agree that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew..." — this needs a citation, giving at least one who does not agree. Otherwise, I don't see the point in "most". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the lede just needs to summarize the body (as in WP:LEAD) and the body has references which state that by the end of the 19th century people also argued that Jesus was Aryan - e.g. the Nazi theologians supported that hypothesis (search for Aryan in the article /refs 354 and 364). So that should settle the issue. However, Palestinian was added with no scholarly support, so I will remove it until support is added. History2007 (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

oh, ok. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Biased article

Why is this article highly biased towards the completely unfounded Christian point of view? As the so-called "free encyclopedia" should be free of bias, I ask the Wikipedia community to pay more attention, revert bias and be more objective and not leaning towards your own opinion when writing an article.88.236.124.224 (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind being useful and saying what exactly you have a problem with, or are you just going to complain in a general way that doesn't help and insults a number of the non-Christian editors involved in this article?

The article summarizes what is written about Jesus, with weight given to different views according to how present those views are in different sources. Most of the stuff written about Jesus is written by Christians, in fact noone would know who this Jesus fellow is if Christianity had not come about.

Christian beliefs are only descibed as beliefs, not as solid facts. Rejection of these beliefs is also described. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, there is a sizable body of critical, scholarly literature on Jesus written by respected credible academics — and this article represents their views as well, with links to articles that go into much greater detail (just as the article on Christianity is where you actually must go to find out what Christians really think, not here). Slrubenstein | Talk 17:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Saying that an article is biased should not be taken as insult to authors (christian or not). If an article is biased in a large sense, then it is perfectly okay to say "the (whole) article is biased". IP 88.x.x.x didn't "assume good faith" with his/her tone, but it was okay for him/her to call the article "(largely) biased". Many articles in WP are indeed like this (largely biased). We need to be allowed to say it generally without the burden of citing specifics, as we would be allowed to do in any OTHER article that we thought was "largely biased". Attempting to bully someone (only slightly) into that extra burden implies, as a minimum, the "bias of defense", that is, that you and/or your other christian and non-christian editors consider this article your own and feel you must defend it. At most, it implies an actual attempt to, um, ah, bias the article.  :-)

Okay then. I piped in here because I too noticed some bias/POV right off the bat. Not that I should be bullied into citing specifics, but one example is in the main picture under "Resting Place" where it says "Traditionally and temporarily", as if "temporarily" is a fact. "Temporarily" implies "risen" and walked "somewhere else" of his own accord, right? Most would not interpret it as meaning he was removed, "still dead", by others and put somewhere else, right? Now, "temporarily" might be given as a "fact" in the citation, but no such citation can be held to be reliable. The only time a citation may be used is if it is reliable. Clearly, in this case "reliability" of most citations is a matter of serious dispute. To state "temporarily" as if it is a fact is an acceptance of a citation as reliable, or a (mis)use of an unreliable citation. No citation giving such a thing as a fact can be held to be reliable. If it is implied to be reliable by its use, it is POV, that is, biased. If it is a (mis)use of an unreliable citation, okay maybe that wouldn't be biased, just a mistake, but given the subject it looks a lot like bias.

Ian.thomson said "Christian beliefs are only described as beliefs, not as solid facts." In the above example, that isn't the case. A belief IS described as a fact. Additionally, he says "The article summarizes what is written about Jesus, with weight given to different views according to how present those views are in different sources". This is not the way to assess reliability and it is not encyclopedic. It's like voting for what gets considered to be scientific fact. If a lot of powerful people write that the sun goes around the earth, should that be given great weight and described as fact? Of course not. The criterion is reliability. Usually, expertise of editors is applied in determining reliability. But, sources containing religious assertions (vs. data-based writings from a history perspective) can never be agreed to be reliable. Anything stated as a fact from such a source is either the good-faith use of an unreliable source, or BIAS. Given the nature of the subject, and the never ending desire of believers to convince (i.e. BIAS) non-believers, it is much easier to give greater likelihood to the prospect of bias rather than the good-faith (mis)use of an unreliable reference. This historic onslaught of bias (in other media) also makes IP 88.x.x.x's defensive tone, well, forgivable!  :-)

108.7.242.49 (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No it is not OK to make a vague and general criticism without stating expliclitly how it could me improved. What is biased exactly? Which alternative viewpoints does the IP want to include?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

To moderate my above comment a bit, reliability of a citation probably needs to apply only to things asserted as fact. If something is stated as "so-and-so believes X" then maybe "according to how present those views are in different sources" is a good criterion. Ian.thomson was probably referring to this (second) case.

108.7.242.49 (talk) 05:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The top part, WP:TLDR, but the last part regarding "reliability of a citation probably needs to apply only to things asserted as fact" is not Wikipedis policy, and is the same as the other case. The issues are explained in WP:RS which should be read. History2007 (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You could be right. I was making a different point though (I think). I was backing off from a previously stronger assertion and probably using a stricter sense of the word "reliable"  :-) 108.7.242.49 (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the temporary resting place example, temporary also implies stolen.

As for religious sources being unreliable, we don't cite the Bible as historical data, but scholarly interpretations which take history into account and read between the lines, something that has to be done with most documents before the Enlightenment.

As for demanding certain responses being "bullying," just saying the article is biased without saying how is a waste of everyone's time and bandwidth. It is not helpful, the wasteful cry for attention is only separated from trolling by intention. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if it really did refer to the removal of a (still) dead body from a tomb, then "temporary" is unbiased. However, there are a few context reasons for a reader to expect that that wasn't the intent, and if it wasn't the intent or if it is interpreted otherwise, it is biased. The context reasons are: 1) Given the pervasive story of resurrection, "temporary" strongly suggests that it is referring to the prospect of resurrection. A story of removal of a dead body by theft or otherwise is not pervasive. It is not in the general background knowledge that human beings (necessarily) use to interpret what they read. 2) The cited source is "apologetic" in nature. There are other reasons, but what I'm really getting at is that this should be addressed because reasonable people can readily interpret it as biased, whether it was intended or not.

It is easily fixed: 1) Add an inline note (like an inline citation) after "temporarily" saying it refers to theft from the tomb (if the source supports it) or, 2) Simply remove "temporarily" and put "Initial" before "Resting Place" also with an inline note saying it refers to removal. 3) Any of many other ways that I'm sure you guys can come up with. 108.7.242.49 (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I want to add: it has taken me many years but I am now very tired of people who argue about the lead or in this case the info-box. I have seen this over and over again at a wide variety of articles: people don't like the lead, but never take the time to read the body of the article.

This matters because the info-box like the lead should only summarize points from the body of the article. It is in the body of the article that we explain the different views, identifying the perspective and assessing its weight, and provide sources.

In my view, the only question any of us should argue over with regards to the introduction or info-box of any article is: does it introduce or summarize the whole article accurately and in a clear and graceful style? If it does not, then we make sure that it does.

Similarly, all arguments over neutrality, verifiability of views, reliability of sources, should cconcern itself with the body. If the body violates NOR that is a serious problem. It doesn't matter if the lead or info box are neutral if the bulk of the article isn't. Even if addressing this requires on to read the whole article. If the body complies with NOR, then it is simply a matter of checking to make sure that the lead and info-box actually reflect the article as a whole.

I do not mean to pick on one anonymous user who I believe is acting in good faith. I am describing what i see as a common problem at Wikipedia, and I think that this particular discussion is just one example of a widespread problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Standards apply to the whole article. You seem to be suggesting that part of an article doesn't need to meet standards while the rest does. That's not supportable. Reasonably able people can easily summarize an unbiased article in a way that's unbiased. It just not that hard.  :-) 108.7.242.49 (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to add my weight to the people who claim that this article is biased. It is written from the point of view that it is almost indisputable that the character known as Jesus existed.

The section that details the arguments' that Jesus could be mythical, is a few paragraphs long. It starts with the phrase "Although most scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established using documentary and other evidence", and proceeds to give 5 references. It then suggest another 5 authors who disagree. Since we have 5 for, and 5 against, whence comes "most scholars"?

Since we must all agree that the Bible cannot be used as a reliable source for the historicity of Jesus, is there any hard evidence for his existance? It's interesting that nobody would argue that Hercules, Mithras, Adonis, Dionysys, Attis etc. were historic, yet we are apparently all so certain that Jesus was, despite the deafening silence regarding any actual evidence.

I would suggest that the default tone for an encycolpaedia regarding the historicity of characters who are held to be gods, is that they do not and did not exist. Some examples of what I would consider reasonable evidence would be:

• Roman records of his crucifixion/existance/trial.
• Records of his presence in any of the countries he was purported to have visited.
• Records of the presence of any of his disciples.
• A historian that documented his existance that didn't also believe he was the creator of the universe.

The bottom line is, given the miracles, and general fuss that Jesus was supposed to have caused, it is very unlikely that such a character would leave such a void of evidence. Also, there was argument even around the time Jesus supposedly existed that he was mythical, the Cathars for example believed he was mythical. How could this be if he was alive and famous? It would be like people today arguing about whether Elvis existed.

Similarly, the 'evidence' for Jesus existence, all comes way too late. We have Josephus at ~95CE (likely forgeries since he wasn't Christian, yet still refers to Jesus as the Christ or 'anointed one'). Then it's Hegesippus at ~170CE, and then Pliny the Younger at ~112CE. If we take the Elvis analogy again, it would be as though nobody would decide to write anything about Elvis until 2037. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyGod (talk • contribs) 09:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC) HappyGod (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the arguments above are classic WP:OR and personal views. The Jesus myth theory does have some supporters, but they are a distinct minority, as its own article states. Wikipedia uses the general scholarly consensus as expressed in WP:RS sources, and there is a preponderance of respected scholars who support the historical existence of Jesus - regardless of if any miracles were performed. The miracles are Christian belief, and logically speaking they should not be used to either support or deny the historicity of Jesus as a historical figure. If and when the Jesus myth theory gains widespread scholarly acceptance, the situation may change, but as of now it does not have it, as the WP:RS references clearly indicate. History2007 (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. If HappyGod is so interested in telling historians how to work, she should get a doctorate in history and write a thesis on Jesus and then publish her views. In the mantime, our responsibility is not to make our own judgments about the sources but rather to present all significant views. We do say that some people believe Jesus never existed but as history2007 says, this is a minority among scholars. Our introduction not only identifies the views (views, not "truths") of the major religions. We also provide a concise an accurate account of what most critical historians/academic biographers of Jesus agree on, and a brief account of the diversity of views among such scholars. It wouldn't matter if every active editor working on this page personally believed Jesus never existed - we have to provide an accurate and proportionate account of the major views. We also provide sources, so if anyone doesn't understand why it is that most historians hold this view, they can, well, get the book and read it. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"The Jesus myth theory does have some supporters, but they are a distinct minority, as its own article states" - Weasel words and citation most definitely required! Also, using another wikipedia page as evidence is a circular argument to say the least.

I note that both critics also spectacularly miss the point of my complaint and are typically patronising and arrogant. It is up to us to ensure that we not only provide references, but provide reliable references. And who exactly are charged with making sure that they are? Well, that would be you and me. So if I'm able to provide logical reasons why some evidence is bogus, why should that be discounted?

It is not enough to provide a few links to some historians that say that Jesus exists and then make a blanket statement that "most historians ...". If you want to make that statement, back it up with facts. Where is the poll that asks contemporary historians on their view? You can find just as many who do, than those who don't. I'm just asking that we be intellectually honest in what is supposed to be an objective document. HappyGod (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There you go: highly implausible. Please read more, search more, opine less. History2007 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Using another Wikpedia page as evidence is not a "circular argument" at all. Pointing to a page that goes into the matter in more detail and provides citations is entirely reasonable. "Reliable references" refers to actual scholarly sources, not what you consider to be "logical reasons". As a matter of fact I find your reasons wholly illogical, but this is not a forum for discussing them. See WP:TALK. The links are not to some historians who say that he existed (note the past tense - only believing Christians think he "exists" in the present tense) but to historians who say this is the general consensus of scholars. Most historians consider that the figure who appears in the NT does not in any way resemble a mythological being. The idea that "records" of such an obscure person should still exist demonstrate how little you understand of what we can reasonably expect from historical material from the era. Paul B (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting and unfortunate that you guys insist on patronising editors in order to defend your article. It's not ok to use other wiki pages, because that would be original research. You could simply have two pages that back each other up, and that would be ... circular.

There were about 40 historians active at the time Jesus supposedly existed. They mention loads of characters from around that time. I recently enjoyed a book detailing the lives of the first 4 ceasars of Rome, as well as many of the contemporary politicians of that era, including Pilate, Cato, Herrod, Augustus. All of whom are well documented and mentioned in numerous separate documents. Basically, if you exist and are famous, you get mentioned. It is for this reason that people are now also beginning to question the existence of Plato (and rightly so in my view).

Of course, Plato's article will no doubt be a more objective read on Wikipedia. HappyGod (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyGod (talk • contribs)

Why would the contemporary historians bother with a Jewish daylaborer street-preacher who lived in the boonies, only had a few dozen followers while living (no more than a hundred), died only a few years after gathering followers, and was executed as a common criminal? It's like expecting CSPAN to give coverage to a homeless guy I talked to who thought he was Moses. And how and why would a few dozen people simultaneously make up such a figure and begin convincing others that such a fellow existed without being called liars by the people who would have executed Jesus? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to be patronised, then try to learn something about Wikipedia before posting garbled comments. The pages you were pointed to are policy pages. You say "it's not ok to use other wiki pages, because that would be original research". No. See WP:OR. It's not OK to use them as sources in an article, because of the rules of WP:RS. That does not mean we can't point to policy pages on the talk page or indeed to other articles. You are completely mixing up unrelated issues. The number of "forty historians" is plucked out of thin air - or more likely the internet. There is no reason why any of these guys should have mentioned an utterly minor preacher and/or petty criminal in an obscure corner of the empire. Other messainic figures such as Theudas and Judas of Galilee are not mentioned by these forty historians, any more than even major Jewish figures like Gamaliel. Even the most famous of all Jewish religious leaders, Hillel the Elder, is not mentioned in any contemporary "records". Are all these people mythical? Paul B (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Your statement about policy and editing is fully correct. Being mythical is neither supported or contradicted by being mentioned in contemporary records, just as not being mentioned neither corroborates or refutes mythical status. I actually think that the argument with the best support is that most and possibly all of what we know about Jesus is myth, but I acknowledge that this is not the mainstream view (yet?). That is what matters, not whether editors here find it likely or unlikely based on their knowledge of the evidence.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is not about the determination of truth (whatever it may be), but providing a summary of scholarly sources. History2007 (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

HappyGod, your postings are degenerating to WP:Forum, and are purely "personal opinions" without a single WP:RS source and hence irrelevant to Wikipedia. Please avoid the use of Wikipedia talk pages as a forum for the discussion of personal views. You are welcome to discuss such matters at the closest bar to you, with the patrons there, but Wikipedia talk pages are not intended for such conversations. History2007 (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: FAQ of past questions

In order to reduce the level of effort that goes into "repeated discussions" does it make sense to have a FAQ at the top of this page that gets populated as questions are asked?

My rationale is that there are usually underlying processes that drive systems and Wikipedia is no exception. Some time ago I came across a paper based on a thesis by a student about Wikipedia and he had done some studies that made sense. As I searched again, I only found a summary of the thesis here, but his main argument, supported by various graphs was that as the number of Wikipages and Wikiusers increase, reality will catch up with us, and he predicted that there will be:

an untenable trend towards progressive increase of the effort spent by the most active authors, as time passes by. This trend may eventually cause that these authors will reach their upper limit in the number of revisions they can perform each month, thus starting a decreasing trend in the number of monthly revisions, and an overall recession of the content creation and reviewing process in Wikipedia.

So as more and more IPs require comments, the level of effort to support them may become a burden. One way to avoid that may be to have an FAQ that answers questions like "why do you say most scholar", as asked above a few days ago, or a summary of the responses provided to HappyGod above, etc. Also the issue of "Jesus is buried in Kashmir" discussed above may have an entry there with multiple signatures endorsing an exclusion, etc. That may get asked in 18 months again.

That way, when a question is asked, we can just say "read FAQ item 17" and be done with it. Over time most questions will have answers in the FAQ and it will be easier to handle than the archives. Of course an ask.com type system may arrive in a few years for Wiki-archives, but that is too far away. For now, FAQ may help reduce the ongoing burden. Suggestions? History2007 (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There already is a faq. Maybe we need to make it more obvious? Farsight001 (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I will call my optometrist and give him a really hard time! But now that I have seen it, the FAQ is very short, and needs expansion, and more prominence. Also some of the links (e.g. Chronology) don't seem to get to the right archive. And if that had been a 2006 discussion, the Chronology has since been significantly expanded, e.g. by working backwards from the trial before Gallio in Achaea in 51/52, etc. If the FAQ had been more extensive the discussion with HappyGod should have been minimal. I will try to update some of the FAQ then. But how to make it more prominent? Is there a way to have a footer on this talk page that says, "read the FAQ first"? History2007 (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Determining the age of 'Jesus'

Firstly Jesus is a CONCEPT as it is only English that uses Jesus as spelled j e s u s.

From Coptic into FRENCH as J'ai su meaning 'I have known' from the verb savoir.

Well 'he' 'knows' (that) you 'know'. She also knows. But 'it'?

Well it might know it but then again it might not know it.

When it comes to spelling in other languages the same is true for - g o d - and - p o p e. (!)

The supposed age of DEATH is the SAME as the supposed age of the BIRTH of the Universe or this particular Milky Way galaxy ONLY. Milk from Atum the masturbator from the Great Ennead.

(Milky Way as with milk - and - as with sperm.)

That is because it is not certain that the Universe was created with one act of creation or whether there was a separate implosive (thunderclap) bang for each galaxy.

The 'age' of 33 is derived by splitting an 8 with a V to give 3V3 (You do need to reverse one 3.)

See: 33° Freemason and the Wikipedia talk page for Adam and Eve and the Initial Origins of Adam and Eve.

Wikilink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adam_and_Eve#Initial_Origin_of_Adam_and_Eve

Recently the Vatican has said, and I quote, "Jesus was dead BEFORE 'he' was born."

I.E. The CONCEPT was dead before IT was born and here IT refers to sex and INANIMATE objects.

So it is better to stay fit and on the move whilst you are ABLE to... ;-)

Cheap JOB LOT of animules. (Bah!)

Ian Chattan NATO SIS 178.116.241.155 (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)