Jump to content

Talk:Jesus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 220.233.107.29 (talk) at 16:34, 5 July 2006 (→Comments about the Current Article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Talkheaderlong

Template:FAOL Template:Todo priority

Archives of older discussions may be found here:
 Key to archives,
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,25, 26,27, 28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63
Subject-specific: Talk:Josephus on Jesus, Talk:Virgin Birth, Talk:Jewish views of Jesus
ACTIVE sub-pages /Cited Authors Bios, /Christian views in intro, /Scribes Pharisees and Saducees, /Dates of Birth and Death, /2nd Paragraph Debate, Related articles, /Historicity Reference, Comments, Sockpuppets, Languages Spoken by Jesus, /Historical Jesus

Archives and Live Subpages

Recent Archive log

  • /Archive 58 - Christ: Title or name; cult leader; vandalism; Islam; what should "Life and Teachings" section include and exclude?;race of jesus; sexual orientation of Jesus; Very long article: 82kb; the cross is black; Was Jesus a bastard?; article name: Jesus or Jesus Christ?
  • /Archive 59 - The trial again, part 2.
  • /Archive 60 - Fiction; Criminals category; Removed NPOV tag; Archive, don't delete; Points of Agreement; Suggestion; An important detail and a link got lost - why?; second paragraph; Execution v. Crucifiction; Messianic Jews; topics box; AID drive over
  • /Archive 61 - Quotes from Jesus; Condensing article; question about BC; Messiah's Mendacity; Undue weight (Christianity and other religions)?; Jesus' brothers?; pov (Christian template); Why was POV tag removed?; Trinitarian context; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses
  • /Archive 62 - Why is there no neturality warning for Jesus, but for Jesus-Myth?; Is this neutral enough?; Legacy of Jesus; C.S. Lewis; Page protected; External links - deletions

Subpage Activity Log

To do list

The article concerning Jesus of Nazareth, and indeed all articles centered on Christian topics, ought to evoke only the BC/AD system of dating. As a longtime patron of Wikipedia I have noticed that articles relating to non-Christian religions very rarely reference the birth of Christ for setting the hisotrial context. Articles relating to Judaism for example most frequently use BCE and CE to establish the date of a particular event. This is most likely done to remove Christ as the frame of reference for a religion that does not accept Christ. If this is the accepted standard then Wikipedia should maintain the BC/AD standards exclusively when discussing Christian issues. Template:68.14.24.158

I moved the above from the to list page because it's the sort of comment that really belongs on the talk page. Frankly, I've seen AD/BC vs CE/BCE vs both notations argued so many times that I'm getting tired of hearing about it, but feel free to comment if you have anything to add.

Just to confuse the AD vs. CE debate, since AD grammatically should precede the date, should neutral dates correctly be given as AD 32/32 CE? Joel Bastedo 06:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also had a question about a couple of items on the list. There has been very little editing to the life & teachings section, so can we consider item 1.1 to be complete? What about item 1.2? Do we still need more details on the Last Supper, Passion and the Sermon on the Plain, or did we decide to let this go? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 20:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the only thing I can really think of at the top of my head that really ultra super obviously needs to be done is reference the "other views" section. Homestarmy 00:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not soo much that as much as adding the external link:[[1]]70.8.49.228 03:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If CE/AD is really a sticking point, I can code a template where we can allow the viewer to choose which one displays by clicking a link at the top of the page. Does this sound workable? אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 13:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a larger goal for the whole wikipedia project is to have that option, so a user could choose from a number of different options, more than just CE vs AD. However, I think that should be a cite wide change, not just on a per article basis. So I think we have the best solution for the time being until something that would effect all articles comes along.--Andrew c 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic views

I have and addition to the islamic views about jesus miracles because there is no account for this in christianty...if you may think this is valiable you can add it...if you think it may harm....don't...we beleive that he did talk to those around him when he was in the cradle (a newly born baby) stating that he is a gift from god to Mary....and this was a heavenly testmony that Mary was a virgin....it is said that isrealites other than her family were skeptical around his origins.....and this put an end to all the fuzz. --mzkaddah 21:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't some of that in the section already? It's possible we just couldn't find a citation, I remember trying to verify some of those sections awhile ago and I think I might of had to throw out some beliefs because I couldn't find any citations for them. Homestarmy 18:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God and Jesus

Are god and jesus the same person Dragon Emperor 06:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God is three persons in one; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; see Holy Trinity. Jesus is God, but since being born on earth is also a perfect human. rossnixon 09:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those who believe in the Trinity believe that there are three manifestions of One God; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. There is a perfect union between the three and they are one. Others believe the Jesus Christ is a separate being from God the Father, but would also say they are One. This is one of the myterious of Christianity. The description I have given above is the barest minimum that does not begin to provide a complete reponse to the question. This single question has attempted to be answered by Christianity for two thousand years.
It should be understoood that the vast majority of Christian churches would state that the concept of the Trinity is correct. You are encouraged to read and study, then make your own decision. Storm Rider (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And then there are some people who believe that he was a horribly misunderstood Rabbi who taught a form of grass-roots Judaism. That question, unfortunately is not one that Wikipedia can answer. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 13:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection and Ascension

I think cleaning up this subsection should be a priority. There is no consistency in the formatting for references, there's some vague reference to 'other ancient sources' (presumably extra-cannonical?) mentioning Jesus' resurrection appearances, and in general it seems choppy. Joel Bastedo 06:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh view of Jesus

I think that the sikh view of Jesus should be added to the other religious views section. It should be something like this, although obviously open to final edit.

"Sikhs show the utmost respect for Jesus because of the values he has taught and his enlightenment of humanity. However, Sikhs do not accept any one prophet as the savior or the only son of god. In Sikhism every living thing has been made by God so every living thing is the son of God. Many of the things Jesus taught, such as love for fellow Humans, the existance of one God and the importance of belief, are important aspects in Sikhism." 14.16, 24th June 2006 (GMT +1)
Hmm, im not exactly sure what Sikhism is myself, is it eastern? How many adherants are there? Homestarmy 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try looking it up. I don't this passage adds much. It's essentially no different from a common Hindu view. Paul B 10:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus original name

Can we get an expert to confirm that Jesus name was "Yahoshua" (Yahweh is Salvation). I think it's imporatant that we clarify Jesus original name, and not just the latin/roman/english form of it. I do not know what kind of "evidence" we need to refer to in order to prove it, but I will do my best. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was Yeshua, the short form of Yahoshua. Check Yeshua or http://www.direct.ca/trinity/yehoshua.html rossnixon
ישוע [yeshua`] was the convention in the 1st Century, and was that way since the Exile to Babylon when the vernacular language of the Jews changed from Hebrew to Aramaic. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 21:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we post it in the first section? I mean we have the "Christ" part in the first section, nicely explained out. I think we should show some of the same clarity for his actual name. Again I do not want to post it myself. But the word "Jesus" has a meaning and was translated from Hebrew into Latin, just like the word "Christ" has a meaning trnaslated from Hebrew to Latin. Put em both up there! :) --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could have a brief explaination, linking to the main article: Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. Does that sound good? אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 14:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Steve, all I want is just the little linguistic origin next to the name. look at [[2]], see how you have his name's original meaning and the Hebrews pronunciation next to his name? Same thing with [[3]]. Here I will put it here, and we can figure out what the deal is.

Jesus ( יְהוֹשֻׁעַ "God is salvation", Standard Hebrew Yəhošúaʿ, Tiberian Hebrew Yəhôšuªʿ, Greek "Iesous")
The subject is already covered in the historicity section. The "correct" name of Jesus seems a facinating issue for some people, but all of the Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and other names (unless one speaks those languages) are of little interest to the common reader; thus the explanation in the body of the document. This has been discussed many times in the past; you may want to review the archives to see the discussion. I would suggest you read the cited section and edit it, but reserve the introduction for only broad statements about the topic. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a moment, that's not making sense. The origin of the name "Jesus" is of little interest to the common reader, but the origin of the word "Christ" is more interesting? This article is an encyclopedia entry, how can you reason that the origin of the article's title "Jesus" is not interesting. Wikipedia's common format is to show the origin of the words. So please do not dismiss this as an issue of "interest". In article after article of names, you have the "tiberian" hebrew and the "common" hebrew next to the name, for a wide varitey of far less interesting topcis. For example, with the "Joshua" article, you have a nice small 2 sentance description of his name and it's origin. Will you please put the "Ieosus" Greek, "Yehoshua" Hebrew and the little hebrew letters next to "Jesus" as well as "Christ"? A lack of interest is not a "reason".--Zaphnathpaaneah 12:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zaphnathpaaneah, there is nothing wrong with your request - except that a few experts went over just this question several months ago. The problem is that the first recorded mention of Jesus' name is in Greek. There are many good reasons to suppose that his actual name was in Aramaic, but any attempt to reconstruct it is pure speculation. We simply do not have direct evidence. This is why any attempt to begin the article mentioning his original name is impossible. Any attempt would violate NPOV or NOR. At most, we can have a section in which we review different scholars who have claimed to reconstruct Jesus' original name, explain how they did it, and point out any differences between reconstructions or reasons why scholars have not yet achieved an absolutely certain consensus. Such a section is not appropriate for the introduction to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Xty template

Once again the Xty template says Jesus was God the Son. This happens over & over again -- this time thanks to Aiden. I have removed the template from this article & encourage others to do the same until the blatant POV is removed --JimWae 05:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down, JimWae. This isn't a violation of WP:NPOV, as articles/templates are supposed to profess their subject's POV in order to maintain an article. Just because "God the Son" links to "Jesus" doesn't mean that's Wikipedia's POV it means thats Christianity's POV—nothing is wrong here. I'm sure no one else shares your opinion. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 05:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this before & I am sure I was NOT the only one who thought that it compromised the NPOV of the Jesus article to say Jesus is God the Son. "Calm down" & "I'm sure no one else shares your opinion" is arrogant & dismissive --JimWae 05:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well my apologies but I really can't see how a template that already displays "God the Son" would be any more POV by linking this text to "Jesus", as there is nothing else that "God the Son" could possibly stand for. Displaying the text in itself is just as POV as linking this to Jesus–its obvious target. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 05:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finding an appropriate link is not my problem. It was OK before - try that one or remove the template from this article. So you really think professing faith is NPOV, eh? --JimWae 05:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree with you in regards to there being an issue with the current Template:Christianity status, as I do not see anything more POV than the previous version. Put it this way—the previous version had "God the Son" linking to "Christology", which is the study of Jesus. Since we're linking "God the Son" to the study of Jesus, I hardly see the issue with linking it directly to Jesus, which is more to the point. What's the difference between these two links, in your opinion?. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 05:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fist of all, Christology is the "study of Christ", not "study of Jesus", as you should already know. But,as I said, the problem is not mine. Can people who think professing faith is NPOV handle this, or does it need another hand? --JimWae 05:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the study of Jesus. "Christ" is a term often used in describing the figure from a Christian POV, as per "Christmas" as opposed to "Jesusmas", "Christianity" as opposed to "Jesusism", etc. From the Christology article: "Christology is that part of Christian theology which studies and attempts to define Jesus, the Christ. This area of study is generally less concerned with the minor details of his (meaning Jesus') life". In conclusion, linking "God the Son" to an article about the study of Jesus of Nazareth is just as POV as linking it to Jesus himself...except for the fact that it makes more sense simply to link to "Jesus". I am failing to see how you justify your opinion that this is a "blatant POV". As for "people who think professing faith is NPOV"—your conclusion that linking "God the Son" to Christology is NPOV places you in the same category, apparently. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 05:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this once more - it is not my problem. If an NPOV link cannot be found for "God the Son" then, for a start, the Xty template has to be removed from the Jesus article --JimWae 06:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that you had no problem with the former link to Christology? You still haven't explained why this link is any more POV than linking to Jesus. Linking "God the Son" to the study of Jesus Christ is an obvious acknolwedgment that Jesus is indeed the aformentioned "Son of God"—so I cannot see a motive to your actions other than simply to cause unnecessary conflict. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 06:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remova;l of this template is nothing more than tiresome edit warring. Jesus is God the Son in the theology of the Trinity. Obviously non-Trinitarians -which includes some Christians - don't accept that. So what? It's just a link. Paul B 10:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was always of the opinion that the Christianity template should be placed within the Christainity section of the article, as Jesus has a template spread all for himself which is currently in "second place." According WP:NPOV, bias is to be avoided: "A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology." Under this, having the Christianity template at the top of the article appears to be a strong predilection for one particular point of view, i.e. Trinitarian Christianity or just Christianity in general and should, under Wikipedia Policy, be altered. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you take all the "Islam", "Judaism", "Hindu", and any other POV templates away from all figures associated with them. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 23:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be 100% behind moving all religion-based templates to religion-based sections of those articles as well. Just because a number of articles are in violation of policy does not mean that they should all be allowed to violate policy, yes? A generally-accepted mistake should be corrected universally. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 01:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are very right and very brave to say so. The chances of the edits sticking are minimal however as a lot of editors do not see these articles as reports on a religion but rather as an area to put forward the standard teachings of their faith - very different things indeed. Sophia 13:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To move the Christianity template would lead to editors who personally identify with Jesus within the context of Christianity feeling personally threatened because that identification is so deeply rooted within them. Identification is a tricky issue, and I feel is our duty to deal with and to make sure that fellow editors understand that it would not be a personal attack against themselves or their beliefs, but a step towards complying with the very policies that have allowed Wikipedia to exist as the rich information commons as it is today. In the end, the Christianity template would still be in the article, just in a section that discusses Christianity specifically where theological views can be made mentioned and discussed. The policies we have are based upon consensus, so it would be only appropriate for us to abode by our own rules, yes? אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 14:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good example of what I feel is more in-line with WP:NPOV in terms of template placement: Gautama Buddha. The {{Buddhism2}} template is placed at the bottom of the article in a fashion that identifies the article as a part on the Buddhism series in a more discrete manner. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 15:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a POV problem with the Christianity article template, but it is not the problem people have been discussing. There is no problem with saying that there are a list of topics related to Christianity, including one on God the father, one on God the Son, and one on God the Holy Spirit. Such a list does not claim that God is father or son, or holy ghost - it merely claims that there is a belief that God is the father, etc. The article is about a particular belief. We have an article on anti-Semitism - the existence of the article does not suggest that there really is something wrong with Jews, only that there is a set of beliefs out there. None of these violates NPOV.
here is what violates NPOV: in the Christianity template, the Jesus the Son link goes to this here article, "Jesus." This is a problem, because this article is not about "Jesus the son." it is a lead article about a person called Jesus, who some people believe is a fictional character, others believe is the son of God at one with the father, and others believe was a real (non-divine) human being. The NPOV of this article depends on us not privileging one of these views. But the Christianity template does just this, it privileges the view that this article is only about Jesus the Son. This is what is wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But in the Christian view, "God the Son" is Jesus. "God the Son" is not "Christian views on Jesus" or "Christology" or whatnot, it's "Jesus". All those alternative links simply avoid the issue. Just because Jesus is viewed differently by various people doesn't mean that Christians don't see him (the actual historical person) as the Son of God. Linking "God the Son" to anything else is purely and simply dishonest. I am failing to see any fitting alternative link destinations. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 08:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled, why is there no God the son article? Make that and I think this question will be settled immediately. Alternatively, point to a corresponding article or corresponding section of an article to the phrase "God the son". Netscott 09:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CrazyInSane I think you misunderstand my point. I am not saying that the link for "Jesus the Son" should be deleted. I agree that this refers to a Christian belief and that there should be an article explaining and elaborating on this belief. I am only arguing that this particular article should not be it, because this article is about Jesus at the most general level. Within this article we do state that Christians believe Jesus is the son (and we should not delete this, either). But we also provide many other views. So it is simply wrong to characterize this article as being about "Jesus the Son." Yes, this is what Christians believe, and yes, this is precisely why to do so would be to violate NPOV. And linking God the Son to this article, which states that there are many who believe Jesus was not the son, is dishonest. There should be a separate article on Christian including trinitarian views of Jesus. And the link in the Christianity template should go to that (or those) articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're making this issue more elaborate and unecessarily confusing than it needs to be. My argument for "God the Son" linking to "Jesus" is that there is no other article that is fitting to link. When/if someone creates the article "God the Son", obviously it can link to that article. The previous article that "God the Son" linked to, Christology, wasn't a totally unacceptable choice, but when people click "God the Son" I assume they are looking for either the actual person Jesus or an article "God the Son". Since the latter article does not yet exist, I see fit "Jesus" as the destination of this link. I have yet to see any alternate link suggestions. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 12:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The God the father links to the God the father article. And yes, we already do have a Son of God article that is very similar in structure and scope to the God the father article. So this is the more appropriate link. I fixed the link. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made the redirect for God the son so looks like we're all good. :-) Netscott 12:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also, Thadman's recent move is consistent with policy and our practice elsewhere ... but - does anyone know how to reformat stuff so there isn't that huge space? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fiddle around with things and see if I can poke something together that looks nice. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 13:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my efforts, I created a new template {{Jesus2}} that is like the normal {{Jesus}} template, only horizontal, but still, no matter where I place it or fiddle around with where to put the table of contents it doesn't seem to look right, conflicts with another template, or has even more white space. I'm not sure what to do with this one. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about Jim? So you have no problem with 'God the Father' being mentioned (seemlingly advocating the POV that there is a God, right?), but 'God the Son' somehow crosses the line? I'm honestly not following. In Christian believe, the Trinity is made up of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. And if I'm not mistaken, this is a Christianity template describing Christian belief. And in Christian belief, Jesus is God the Son/Son of God, not Christology and not an article on the phrase Son of God. —Aiden 14:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, after thinking about it, I see no problem with Jim's version of the template which links to Christian views of Jesus. Heck, this provides a more Christian view, does it not? My issue was with the original link to Christology. That's like linking "God the Father" to theology. —Aiden 15:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Long notice

Up top there's a "Very Long" notice, is that referring to the actual article or just this talk page? Because if it's the article, we might need to do some decision making.... Homestarmy 21:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article (I assume). (Talk pages can always be archived The maximum size suggested is 32 kb, and this one is 87kb. I don't think we have a real problem considering the necessary breadth of the article, but perhaps we can merge and condense into subject-specific articles (Geneology of Jesus, Baptism of Jesus, etc.) AdamBiswanger1 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving the Christianity template dispute

We've already had a problem with solving this dispute, so I suggest that we all try and adhere to WP:DR and walk through this. Edits as to the placement of the Christianity template have been reverted a couple times. According to policy we must not simply revert changes in a dispute. We have already brought this issue to the talk page, so I believe that we need to talk things out further.

The Policy on NPOV states (all underlined emphasis, minus links, are mine in the following):

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

Further in the Policy, it states:

A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology.

And as an example of bias, it lists:

  • Religious bias, including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others.

I doubt that any of us disagree that the Christianity template has a very specific point of view and ideology that it focuses upon. To place such a reader-facing template at the top of the article (where there already is a template about the subject that represents a multitude of different views) gives one religious viewpoint {...} preference over others.

As a result, such a template is not in step with Wikipedia Policy and must be either removed, rewritten, or placed somewhere more appropriate (i.e. the Christianity section of this article). I strongly encourage the third of these options as it is the cleanest and least controversial path towards compliance of the three.

Does everyone else at least see where I'm coming from? :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 16:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Please list comments below.

I think it's contrived to the point of sillyness not to include the Christianity template in the Jesus article. Tom Harrison Talk 17:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that is not what encouraged, nor thought was the best choice of action. Note: As a result, such a template is not in step with Wikipedia Policy and must be either removed, rewritten, or placed somewhere more appropriate (i.e. the Christianity section of this article). I strongly encourage the third of these options as it is the cleanest and least controversial path towards compliance of the three. I would also appreciate hearing your honest opinions about Wikipedia Policy as it stands, as well as how to implement it. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 18:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I misunderstood your edits. I thought you had entirely removed the template from the article instead of moving it to the Christianity section. Without entirely endorsing your reasoning, I don't object to that result. Next time I'll read more carefully. Sorry too for causing the page to be locked. Tom Harrison Talk 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! :-) Misunderstandings happen all the time (God knows I've had, and continue to have, my fair share of them). All I'm hoping for now are a few more opinions and we can probably get this lock lifted. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 18:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now protected due to continual back and forth removal/insertion of the template. Please resolve disputes then either ask me for unprotection or request unprotection at WP:RfPP. Page protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 18:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Christianity has recently been changed, and no longer includes the "controversial" "God the Son" link. The template now has its own section on Jesus Christ, which was an excellent edit in my opinion (I did not perform the edit). I don't know how someone got the idea of moving the template to the "Christian views" section of this article, but it is ridiculous. The opening sentence of this article refers to Jesus being the "central figure of Christianity", and he is certainly known best (perhaps only) for his association with Christianity. If this template is either removed or moved to the "Christian views" section, I will have to begin removing other templates such as Template:Buddhism from Buddha and other related edits to prevent discrimination against Christianity. Please, let's just leave the template at the top where it resided for so long, uncontroversially. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 19:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, we've had this discussion before (Talk:Jesus/Archive_58#Islam) and the Christianity template has remained at the top of the article for quite some time since this initial debate. As we concluded there, Jesus is the central figure of Christianity and is thus a fundamental part of it, making this article an obviously integral part to the series of articles on Christianity. Not only is the Christian views section part of that series, but so is the entire historical context and biography according to the New Testament. In short, the entire article is very very relevant to Christianity in a way it is to no other religion. Similarly, Muhammad has the same relevance to Islam, hence that template being at the top of that article. The same applies to Buddha and the Buddhism template. Funny, I don't see those templates being (re)moved. —Aiden 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Christian religions aren't being meddled with because their is clearly an anti-Christian status in today's Western society, much as some may deny. Some may see Christianity as a threat due to its overwhelming population in North America and Europe, and thus are focused more on eliminating, or reducing, Christian influences on Western culture. This is why I hold that if the Christianity template is herein removed, I will subsequently remove the Islam and Buddhism templates from Budda and Muhammad to avoid anti-Christian bias. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 21:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fight the Good Fight - huh? Steve is trying to balance the article to achieve what he sees as NPOV (and I personally agree that he has a point) so he doesn't deserve to be faced with this martyr mentality. As for the other religious templates, is there somewhere where we could start a general cross religion discussion to get some sort of consensus on placing these templates? Sophia 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia, I appreciate the kind words and I believe that your idea about a cross-religion discussion is something that is far long overdue. We need to come up with standards with how to deal with articles on religion, as it is something of universial importance to the human race, and touches each and every one of us in some way throughout the course of our lives.

CrazyInSane, I was the one who made the edit to the Christianity template, which was subsequently reverted. :-( Jesus may be the "central figure of Christianity" but the Christianity template is not centered around Jesus (the Jesus template is). I firmly believe that the template should not be removed, but that at the top of the article, it is in direct conflict with the policies that I have stated above, and unless we are able to collectively conclude that it does not conflict with those policies, putting it in the Christianity section is the most appropriate course of action. This, of course, would also hold true with all other religion templates and their respective figures. It would kill me to only single one out and leave the others alone, but with how things are currently set up, the situation and policy, we need to resolve this and the Jesus article appears to be the first step towards bringing every article into complaince. I have no anti-Christian bias to speak of. I do take concern, however, when the policies of Wikipedia, which came into being through consensus of our fellow editors, are disregarded even if no harm was meant. For now, I must ask you with the most sincere respect to discuss the policies specifically so that we may take further steps towards resolving this in a friendly manner.

Aiden, I truly appreciate your input, but what you linked to doesn't really discuss the Christianity template, but the Islam template, and under my proposal both templates, in their respective sections, could be allowed to co-exist peacefully and without conflicting with NPOV. As I mentioned earlier, I am not biased against Christianity, nor do I believe that there is an anti-Christian conspiracy in the United States. :-) As stated earlier, my proposal would bring all major religious figures under the same wing, in compliance with the policies that I have outlined above, not singling any one or few out. I don't mean this article, or anyone involved with this article any personal distress, but we must focus upon Wikipedia policy in our contribution. What are your thoughts, specifically about the policy?

Once again, to everyone involved if I have misinterpreted the policies, please show me my error. I am willing to be honest in my evaluations and alter my stance if I am mistaken. Peace! אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 01:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I explained why the entire article, not just one section, is an integral part of the series. This applies to the Islam template at Muhammad and the Buddhism template at Buddha. There is no POV violation going on in any instance. And if you truly believe an NPOV violation is occuring, feel free to move the Islam template to the Life based on Islamic traditions of the Muhammad article and the Buddhism template to an appropriate section in Buddha as well. —Aiden 01:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with Aiden here. Pretty much the entirety of this article's sources for Jesus' historicity are based on writings from the New Testament and Christian writings, not to mention the fact that Jesus is considered God in Christianity, which is overwhelming merit for the Christianity template to have its place at the beginning of the article. Placing it in the "Christian views" section brings it to the same level as "Buddhist views" or "Jewish views", when in fact Christianity and Jesus are very related. But come on, Steve, can you even perceive an issue with this level of ridiculousness surfacing over at Talk:Buddhism or Talk:Islam?? Your declaration of violations of NPOV would probably not be agreed with there, which is giving me the strong inclination to believe that you (perhaps unintentionally) are targeting Jesus and Christianity simply because of their powerful popularity. I don't think that when Jimbo Wales said "absolutely non-negotiable NPOV", he meant it would get this ridiculous. And articles like "Buddha" and "Muhammad" dont even have sections entitled "Buddhist views on Buddha" or similar, so moving the template at those articles would be hard to do, giving the appearance of anti-Christian bias regarding the templates. I don't know how to better explain myself, but I strongly disagree with moving the Christianity template to the Christian views section. And as for your quote, "nor do I believe that there is an anti-Christian conspiracy in the United States", please see Spring holiday and Secularization of Christmas. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 02:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aiden and CrazyInSane: Moving the Islam and Buddhism templates would be the next step, as I have previously mentioned. However, before moving on to either of those, since the Jesus article is the article that I have been most active with in the past, it is the beginning. This move towards full compliance with policy needs to start somewhere. Why not here? Simply calling this proposal "rediculous" does not actually deal with the policy as it is written.
I also find the following very disppointing, Placing it in the "Christian views" section brings it to the same level as "Buddhist views" or "Jewish views".... On Wikipedia, all views are on the "same level." No view should be given special privileges over another and the policy is explicit about this. This is not an attack against either of you, nor against Christianity in whole or in part. I'm being honestly sincere about this. It is about being fair.
Now, let us focus back upon the policy as it stands. Does the placement of the Christianity template at the top of this article allow for one religious viewpoint {...} preference over others? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(As a sidenote, CrazyInSane, I note that both of the articles on conspiracies you linked to are actively NPOV disputed and you are a major contributor to both of them, the major contributor to Spring holiday it seems. :-) I respectfully request that we solely focus on task at hand here. ) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Caruso: Regarding the Secularization of Christmas and Spring holiday articles, any article containing alleged conspiracy or bias will inevitably be NPOV disputed; please don't judge the accuracy and merit of these article based upon my extensive contributions. If you were to read the articles (Spring holiday, especially) you would note that there are extensive sources for all of the claims, and that it's not a bunch of original research and it meets WP:V.
Please don't misunderstand me. I had no intention of judging the accuracy of those articles, especially here (it just would not be appropriate). I was merely trying to coax our conversation back to the issue at hand. Off of this discussion thread I would actually like to hear about your theories and possibly contribute to those articles.אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the issue at hand, I am very uptight about it because I want to ensure that there is no singling out of Christianity in regards to certain NPOV issues, when these issues are disregarded at other religious articles. I mean, look at the situation...Jesus has all dates referred to in "AD" and "CE". Out of all Wikipedia articles, Jesus should be one of the articles to have only AD and BC. Ancient Egypt and Ancient Rome–related articles all use only AD/BC, but somehow the Jesus article cannot. I find this alarming and a sign of bias against Christianity at Wikipedia and among its users. This is why I am so defensive of this article, because I feel (and it's a fact) that Christian-related articles are more subject to so-called "extensive NPOV" when other articles aren't. All Jewish articles contain only "BCE/CE", and anyone who suggests "AD/BC" should be used there would be dismissed as incompetent.
I completely understand how you feel about the AD/CE issue. I personally feel that it is silly, and I have actually been working on an effective solution to the problem for some time now that you may be interested in, but that is for another thread altogether (hit me on my talk page later and I'll tell you all about it).אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point here is that I do not like the fact that this page is currently locked from editing with the Christianity template in the "Christian views" section, and I really am soon going to perform similar actions at the Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and other articles if it is not restored. I do not totally disagree with placing the Christianity template in the "Christian views" section if the same is done for all the other similar articles before we accomplish it here. I do, however, still believe that NPOV is not violated by placing the template at the very top, because although we're not to "place any religious belief above another", Jesus is an integral part of Christianity and his historicity is mainly based on Christian texts. But if there is a large consensus to move the template, I won't disagree if it is done everywhere else first, because I absolutely despise religious bias, whether in favor of Christianity or not. This is where I come to my quote from above, "Placing it in the "Christian views" section brings it to the same level as "Buddhist views" or "Jewish views"..."—I certainly did not intend to be derogatory here and I apologize. What I meant by that statement was that Jesus is much, much more of an important aspect of Christianity than he is of Judaism or Buddhism, and this is dually noted throughout the article. This should be acknowledged with the template placement as well—as is when the "Buddhism template" (as opposed to a Christianity template) is placed at the top of the "Buddha" article. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 16:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken, I was merely worried by how things were phrased. We do need to deal with these issues Wiki-wide. Christianity, by this proposal, cannot be singled out. If you wish to start moving templates before this issue is concluded here, I would warn against it. Once there is a precedent, it will be much easier to roll everything over. As I said, this has to start somewhere, and there is no reasonable reason why it cannot start here. Also, simply because of the fact that this article, even though Jesus may be "much more of an important aspect" to Christianity does not merit an excuse to make an exception to policy. I can only default to Jim's words. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In either case, i expect the Islam template in the Muslim section. , Im not to sure if i like the special treatment of the christian template going to the top, but im not going to bother fighting it... --Striver 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of "fighting it," it's a matter of working within Wikipedia policy. No religion should be given "special treatment," be it Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Spaghettimonsterism, whatever. Islam is also not a minority position when it comes to Jesus, as both Christianity and Islam have estimated memberships of approximately 1 billion people, worldwide, each. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The general facts contained in the article are mostly derived from the Bible, thus this article has irrevocable Christian viewpoint eg. birth, death and chronology of Jesus located in the shared part of the article are based almost solely on Gospels or various interpretations of thereof. - G3, 07:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Then the unfortunate conclusion is that the entire article must be rewritten to conform with NPOV, or the interpretations based upon theology moved to sections that outline them as the Christian point of view. This is not undoable and it is what the policy requires. :-( However, that is something that I am not asking for at this point in time. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thadman, you jump to that conclusion too hastily. This sentence, "The general facts contained in the article are mostly derived from the Bible, thus this article has irrevocable Christian viewpoint" is false. Many historians who are either not Christian or who bracket their Christianity use the NT as a historical source. Like other historical sources (say, the Iliad) they use critical methods for analyzing and interpreting the text. This article already distinguishes between those general elements in the NT most historians accept as fact versus those elements emphasized by Christians, thus acknowledging the two major points of view, plus the third that rejects the existence of Jesus period. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and agree with what you say Slrubenstein. :-) I merely was following G3's claims to their logical conclusion. I'm well aware of the forms of criticism that are employed to construct a scholarly framework to work with ancient texts, and I have much practical experience with employing them (actually, for a few years I was under the tutelage of Dr. Mahlon H. Smith of the Jesus Seminar). I don't believe that this article has an "irrevocable Christian viewpoint," nor do I think that it is in need of a serious revision to bring it into line with NPOV at this point. What I want to focus upon is the placement of that template, and it's relevance to the equality of religious viewpoint sections. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 18:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, the problem with taking the Islamic viewpoint as historical is that the Qu'ran was written over 500 years after Jesus death and it does not draw from any historical sources. In fact, the Qu'ran, written entirely by one man (Muhammad) does not draw from any other sources. In the writings of the Gospels (which at the very least can be tracked back to a generation after Jesus life) draw from historical sources. For example, The Gospels mention Caeser, Pontius Pilate, Caiphas, and others who are confirmed to have lived during this time. It's very frustrating to hear someone complain about the historical existence of Jesus when we have enough evidence that indicates that he must have existed (or at least those who lived during his lifetime attest that he had). Its more frustrating to relate to Islamic sources, which were five centuries detached from the events, and among other things confuse his mother's father with another Mary (Miriam sister of Moses). With Judaism, no one would dispute the existence of Moses, or Elijah. With Islam no one disputes the existence of Muhammad. Why then must Jesus be disputed within Christianity? No religion should be given special treatment, nor should any religion be given undue denigration. Bear in mind, they won't even put the word origin and translation of his name in the first paragraph. --Zaphnathpaaneah 15:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With great respect Zaphnathpaaneah, I'm not trying to discuss historicity or the existence of Jesus, I am trying to deal with issues of religious bias in terms of the placement of that template, solely. At the top of the article, it gives undue weight under Wikipedia policy and would be most appropriate under the Christian views section, just as an Islam template would be most appropriate under the Islamic views section. The existence of Jesus or his role in Christianity is not something that I'm even willing to argue over in this context, as for all intents and purposes concerning the placement of this template, they are moot (do you at least see what I mean?). I'm not disputing Jesus' role within Christianity, nor am I disputing Christianity's connection to Jesus. We have a section dedicated to that subject and that section is most appropriate for our template, no? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 18:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, undue weight deals more with giving minority or less significant views equal footing with a majority or more prominent view. "Undue weight" is confining the Christianity template to the Christian views section, when as several editors have pointed out, the entire article, including historical and cultural context, historicity, and New Testament accounts are all very integral parts of Christianity. Thus, the entire article, not just the section you're confining the template to, is also an integral part of the series on Christianity. It seems to me you're making an issue where there isn't one, similair to how you've created this Talk section titled Resolving the Christianity template dispute to discuss a dispute which you created. As I've said in the past, this issue has been discussed at length before and most editors seem to recognize the article's pertinence to Christianity and (thus) the Christianity template. In the same respect, having the Islam template at the top of Muhammad is not a POV violation, as not only the Sura section, but also the Popular Muslim traditions, Muslim veneration for Muhammad, Historical significance, et al sections are very related to the Islam series. Secondly, it is not a violation of WP:NPOV to include the template because the template itself must also maintain a neutral point of view. Does having the template at the top of the article convey any POV? No. All it does is provide context to this article in respect to other related articles. Jesus is GOD in (most) Christianity and thus undue weight would be applying the same significance to other views in which Jesus has nowhere near the same significance. —Aiden 20:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to the Buddha article is off. Buddha is to Christ, as Jesus is to Gautama Buddha. Next, there is already a few templates on this article, and stacking vertical templates is a terrible idea (using tables to separate them is one option. And to whoever reverted the template move and ignored my note in my edit summary... would you like to learn how to not stack vertical templates?) We have: Topics related to Jesus, Major events in Jesus' life in the Gospels, and Christianity. The "Events" template fits nicely in the section about, well, events. The Jesus Topics template seems to go fine at the top. So where should we put the Christianity template? There is a section about religious perspectives. Christianity is a religion... so it seems logical to put the template in that section. What am I missing? That because Jesus is MORE important to Christianity, that their perspective should go at the top of the article instead of in the religious perspective's section? Seriously, I don't get it. --Andrew c 20:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, Jesus and Gautama Buddha are both inseparable from the religions that they each founded. Even when discussing the historical figures, it's because of those religions that they are notable. Jesus is not only more important to Christians, but he's more important to everyone else because of Christianity. Consideration should be given for putting the Christianity infobox near the top not because it gives a Christian perspective (it should be NPOV, same as everything else), but because Jesus' importance is inextricably linked with Christianity, so it is likely to be useful to someone reading the article. Sxeptomaniac 22:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then if Gautama Buddha is an example of a person who is "inseperable" from the religion he founded and is an acceptable expression of Wikipedia templates, why do we not follow that article's example? The buddhism template is at the very bottom of the page. My point is, that just because a figure is "inseperable" or "the focus" of a religion, does not mean that it must be stamped at the top of the article, as with Jesus, more than one religion wishes to have that stamp. However, each of those religions has their own religious section, and I can only agree with Andrew c's wording: "Christianity is a religion... so it seems logical to put the template in that section." אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 12:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't have a strong preference for putting it at the top or near the bottom. However, the debate and the poll is around whether or not something is wrong with placing at the top. My answer to that remains No. So, it doesn't matter where they actually put the box on Gautama Buddha, because if the debate came up there, my answer would be the same: that putting the Buddhism box near the top does not violate NPOV. Sxeptomaniac 15:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV in the opening paragraph

The opening paragraph currently ends with the sentence:

As the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.

The phrases "not written immediately after" and "little external documentation" are subjective and POV. It would be more NPOV to have just:

A small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.

grlea 11:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not points of view. Thee is objective documentation as to the earliest possible dates of the Gospels. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The statements are relative, but without being related to anything in particular. I.e. if there is "little" external documentation, then who or what defines the normal level of documentation? Likewise, what determines the period of time after someone's death that is considered "immediate"? The documentation is "little" and not immediate in the eyes of the author of the sentence, and that is POV.
I have a different POV, which is that there is a lot of external documentation (relative to his impact (or lack thereof) on the world outside Jerusalem during his lifetime) and that the gospels were written extremely close to the his death (relative to other records of the same period of antiquity and also relative to other religious figures). I am not asking for my POV to be put in, just for the extant POV to be removed. grlea 09:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus' heirs

Obvious questions about the debate (films, books etc)

Why didn't Mary Magdalene and child (if such existed) simply go outside the Roman Empire - there is enough evidence of the borders being porous Silk Road, St Thomas in India etc. Doing this would just mean going across land rather than over the sea to France. Alternatively she could decide to "disappear" into a Jewish community outside her immediate area.

What is the point of protecting the heirs of Jesus - rather than letting them merge into the general population?

Is there any mention of the "siblings of Jesus and their heirs" after the Gospels - who would have some claim to fame.

Given the high death rate, extended familes etc of the pre modern period - an awful lot of records would have to be kept - and thus chances of the information "seeping into the general consciousness."

I'm not sure I follow all of what you're asking, but there are a number of things about Jesus' brother James, though Catholicism holds that he was more of a stepbrother. Sxeptomaniac 16:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Catholicism holds that he was a cousin. Eastern Christianity holds that he was a stepbrother. As for other relatives, see Brethren of Jesus. I think there are historical records for the grandchildren of one of Jesus' brothers/stepbrothers/cousins/whatever (namely Jude/Judas). After that it gets rather murky. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

I am listing this survey under WP:POLLS. This survey does not determine who "wins" or even what course of action this article may take. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone who wishes to participate, please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment (please, no more than a sentence). If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed above in the appropriate subsection, not here:

Q: Does placing the Christianity template at the top of the Jesus article rather than in the "Christian views" section give one religious viewpoint {...} preference over othersWP:BIAS?

Yes

  1. All religions need equal representation under policy. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not sure if people are reading your question correctly. Obviously placing the Chrtistianity template at the top of the article instead of the "Christian views" section gives one religion preference over others. The issue is, however, is it problematic to give the religion that stemmed from this individual preference over the religion that he allegedly practiced, or other religions that hold him as a holy figure, but not their founder. Maybe this poll needs to be reworded. I have commented elsewhere about there I feel this template should go and why.--Andrew c 02:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is the Jesus article (not the Christianity article) & the Jesus template should come first --JimWae 04:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes Jesus is a figure in other religions besides Christinaity. JPotter 17:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes it does, and that's fine since any article on this Jesus will be mostly about Christianity. That said, the Jesus template is a better one for the top of the article. -- Jeandré, 2006-06-30t18:02z
  6. The Jesus template is the obvious for the top of this article. POV would be putting the "Christian views" section at the end. As Jesus is an important figure in other religions I don't really see how we cannot put the template in the "Christian views" section. Sophia 18:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jesus was a historical figure and is a notable figure in religions besides Christianity. It would seem most appropriate to place the Christianity template in the "Christian views" section. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 15:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes, it does, in my opinion, give undue weight. I have no POV concerns if the box is moved to the Christian views section, however. --Joe Decker 17:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. If placed at the top of the article it most definitely yes. Jesus is not only a Christian figure - he also plays a major part in Islam.--Konstable 03:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No

  1. The policy is not "equal representation", but avoiding undue weight. Sxeptomaniac 19:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) -- Clarification: I am only voting that putting it near the top is not an NPOV violation. The best location for it could still possibly be elsewhere, but that is not the subject of this poll. Sxeptomaniac 19:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per undue weight, the Christian view should of course be given more prominence. Secondly, the template itself must also maintain a neutral point of view and thus in no way compromises the neutral point of view of the article. —Aiden 20:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The other faiths that acknowledge Jesus, only do so 600 or more year later, and without their own valid source documents. rossnixon 01:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. What Aiden said. Jesus is much more prominent in Christianity than in other religions, hence the Christian template should receive more prominence here. Wesley 03:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I haven't really commented on this whole issue because it looked very confusing and the problem didn't seem to have to do so much with placing the template as much as the content of the template, but I don't see why the template should be stricken forever simply because it might not conform to NPOV in some people's perspectives right now. Besides, Christianity does have the word "Christ" in it, and im sorry, but other religions sort of don't. I can't help this, and neither can Wikipedia. Homestarmy 04:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per User:Sxeptomaniac and User:Aiden. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 06:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Storm Rider (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Without Christianity I doubt there would even be an article about Jesus. Islam would most likely not even exist. I find this whole situation distateful; it takes NPOV and turns it on its head. Jesus and Christianity is inseparably linked.[reply]
  8. per Sxeptomaniac, putting it at the top does not violate neutrality. Tom Harrison Talk 21:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. per user:Rossnixon (mainly) and user:Sxeptomaniac, user:Aiden -- Adriatikus 01:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Religions need due representation. Jesus is the most important person in Christianity (the world's largest religion) and not a key person in any other major religion. The Bahá'í Faith considers Muhammad a prophet, but we would never consider removing the Islam template from Muhammad's page. --Ephilei 05:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional
  1. Though I believe Jesus is an integral part of Christianity, as is Buddha in Buddhism for example, I would accept the template move, so long as it is completed wherever else is applicable, i.e. at Buddhism, immediately. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. Does Muhammad as it is today violate our policy on neutrality? Tom Harrison Talk 20:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fresh from WP:CS and a scan of the article – meaning I deliberately have not read anything on the talk page other than the thread for this survey – I'd say the current positioning of the {{Jesus}} and {{Christianity}} templates neither promotes nor demotes a POV. Regards, David Kernow 21:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your take on things (and I agree). However, if the Christianity template was taken out of the Religious Perspectives section and placed at the very top of the article (a la the Islam template on the Muhammad article), would that change in lay out change your position on this matter?--Andrew c 22:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, although I think I'd prefer the status quo as the {{Jesus}} template appears more understated... on third thoughts, perhaps it's also better to keep the {{Christianity}} template beside the "Christian views" section as Christianity isn't the only faith to acknowledge Jesus in some way. (Is Islam the only faith to acknowledge Muhammad in any significant way?)  Intriguing, David 01:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
David: No, Islam is not the only religion in which Muhammad is significant. He is also considered a "manifestation of God" in the Baha'i faith. However, the editors at Muhammad have (as we had done in the past here) concluded that not just the Islamic biography section, but all of the historical and cultural context provided in the article is pertinent to Islam and an integral part of the series of articles on Islam (which the template represents). Likewise, all of this article, not just one section, is an integral part of Christianity in a way it is to no other religion. —Aiden 05:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aiden, I unfortunately continue to see that as no excuse to violate a "non-negotiable"WP:NPOV policy. :-( If this were truly the case, then you would also be arguing for the Christianity template to appear at the top of Historical Jesus as "all of the historical and cultural context provided in the article is pertinent to {Christianity}." אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 12:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of us and all of our brothers and cousins agree that NPOV is non-negotiable, inviolable, sacrosanct, and not to be taunted. We disagree on what constitutes neutrality. It is an increasingly tedious rhetorical device to label your oppononts position POV and then to ask how they can defend a position that is non-neutral. Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After taking a plain reading of the NPOV policy, no stretching of semantics, a plain face-value reading as to what constitutes bias according to our own rules as quoted above, I took a look at the Jesus article and I saw the Christianity template in a place that appears to violate those rules. This, again at face value, appears to be a genuine problem. I start a discussion thread about it and a straw poll and I find that I am not the only one who sees this. If it was just myself and no one agreed with me, then yes I suppose I was seeing things incorrectly. However, there is apparently something to this that needs to be dealt with. If we disagree as to what constitutes neutrality, then we must find some way to resolve this issue amicably. When I started this thread, all sorts of accusations were flung at me and I have been trying my best to address them and focus upon the sole reason why I started this discussion: Adherence to our own policies. So I implore of you that we discuss our policies, not how I seem "rhetorically tedious." אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 13:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, Aiden. I'd hope it's possible to write an article on Jesus or Muhammad (or...) without needing to involve Christianity or Islam (or...) from the very start. My understanding is that Christianity as is generally known and practised today was almost all (if not completely) built by people other than Jesus himself, starting with the Apostles, St. Paul, etc. Perhaps somewhere there is where the distinction lies. (I'm also guessing the same is likely to be the case as regards Muhammad and Islam, although I recognise there's a tighter link between himself, the religion spawned and its scripture.)  As regards the templates, I suppose this translates to "keep the status quo" here and perhaps reconsider it at Muhammad and other articles featuring religious figures. Regards, David 01:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do 2 wrongs make a right for Xns now? If all wrongs must be righted before one wrong is righted, then everyone has an "excuse" to continue their wrongdoing--JimWae 06:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there multiple articles on Muhammed? Are there articles & sections of articles on Xn view of Muhammed? Jewish view of Muhammed? --JimWae 06:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, yes Muhammad as it is now does violate your understanding of npov? or No, it does not? Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Homestarmy. Two things. I'm not sure if anyone is advocating simply removing the Christianity template, only moving it to the actual section about Christianity instead of putting it at the top. What do you think about the placement of the template? Secondly, this article is not about Christ (that has its own article), not is it only about the Christian views on Jesus, the New Testament views on Jesus, or Christology (all of which have their own pages). In my mind, there are portions of this article that go along with a series of articles on Christianity, but there are portions of this article that do not, therefore keeping the Christian template in the Christian views section seems most logical. Besides, we get into crowding the opening top of the page with tables if we decide to just place them all at the top (and then we argue over which one goes above the other...)--Andrew c 14:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well alot of the discussion up there seemed to be about "This template is evil because it says "Jesus(Son of God), how detestable and non-NPOV!" rather than anything primarily about whether it deserved to be placed at the top of the article, and the Christian views section isn't the only part that exibits how Jesus is clearly the most important in Christianity, most of the history section is straight from the gospels. Is there a part of template policy which says that templates should only be used at the top for articles which share the templates relation all throughout? Homestarmy 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Homestarmy, where was this discussion (summarized "Jesus(Son of God), how detestable and non-NPOV!") you're referring to? Unfortunately, there is no seperate template policy on Wikipedia and the only time that templates are explicitly mentioned (contentwise) in WP:POLICY is in WP:NPOV which I listed above. This proposal is not against the Christianity template, only about putting it in it's most appropriate place. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The undue weight clause of the NPOV policy states, Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. This is an article directly about Jesus, and not directly about Christianity or Jesus within Christianity (we have a seperate article about that). To put anything other than the Jesus template at the top of this article, I believe, would give that subject undue weight. The article is about Jesus, and there is a template completely dedicated to Jesus that we have in place; hence, the religious views section would be the best place for the Christianity template to live. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 13:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the undue weight clause, it's talking about how not to give undue weight to less prominent views. Christianity is the most prominent view one could associate with Jesus and is thus entitled to due weight. —Aiden 13:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Christianity is one of the most prominent religious views, followed very closely with Islam (on a scale of billions of people). There is an entire body of scholarship and research about Jesus as a person, which is what the Jesus template includes and the Christianity template lacks. But note, even the Jesus template as it is now puts some Christian views at the top giving more than due weight to Christianity. Also note, that these views are specifically about Jesus within Christianity rather than a general overview of Christianity itself. Having references to Ecumenical councils, the Great Schism, the Crusades, and the Reformation has nothing to do with Jesus in this context of this article and would be out of place. How is the Jesus template, as it is now with references to Christianity, not sufficient? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. It seems to me that Christian views of Jesus come from Christianity (and ultimately from God IMHO, but that's a matter of faith). Ergo, the Christianity template should go in the "Christian views of Jesus" section of this article, or, alternately, the Christian views of Jesus page.

Note, too, that the Islam template isn't even in this article. It's in the Islamic view of Jesus article. To be consistent, one would expect to find the Christianity template in the Christian views of Jesus page.

However, this is just my opinion. You may now load the rotten tomatoes and commence firing when ready. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No rotten produce from me. I agree completely and couldn't have worded it better. Thanks for your civility and for weighing in. --Andrew c 02:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be several votes from users I've not seen edit or participate in this article before. I sincerely hope no one is attempting to rig the vote or organize a cabal. —Aiden 23:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden, I made note at the very top of this section that this straw poll was listed on WP:POLLS as outlined under policy. There very well may be people who aren't involved with this article come through, read the poll and vote (which in theory is supposed to reduce bias). Making note of such a thing as that in the words that you have selected I personally find very upsetting and passive-aggressive. Everyone who has voted, thusfar, on the straw poll appears to have a solid history with Wikipedia, and they do not seem to be the kind of one-shot deal that might occasionally be found on AfD, no? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 00:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For me it was like that: browsing WP - seeing the poll - being interested in the subject - thinking - voting. Cheers. -- Adriatikus 01:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Actually I am shocked that there even is a debate about this. It may seem to many people that Jesus is overwhelmingly predominant in Christianity, but in Islam Jesus is also a very major figure. Christian views on Jesus are not the same as Islamic views, and also the various views of historians on Jesus ae even more different. So labelling this article "an article on Christianity" is very severe POV. I have seen some people comment above that Jesus is a predominantly more major figure in Christianity (of course - God, rather than a Prophet or historical figure) - this is irrelavent, because there are over 1 billion Muslims, over 1 billion Atheists, and many more from other religions, who would not consider Jesus to be the Christian God. So in fact this would work out to be the majority of the world's population that does not share this view.--Konstable 03:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a student of Islam, I very much disagree that Jesus is a major figure in it. Most Muslims disagree, but this is mostly to appeal to all the Christians who hold Jesus so highly. In essence, Jesus is just like every other Islamic prophet, no more, no less, and no more. --Ephilei 05:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also as a student of Islam, many Muslims do hold Jesus to a high regard and an important part of their religion, regardless of Christian interpretation (and certainly not in the same sort of adoration one finds in Christianity). He is more than just an average prophet, he is also al-Masih and the precursor to Muhammad. :-) As a result, both Islam and Christianity should have their series templates in their respective sections with the Jesus template on top. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interred

Buried means squashed under layers of earth or least permanently placed underground. Interred means placed in a crypt or tomb.Certainly the corpse was interred (placed in THE tomb) on a TEMPORARY BASIS ONLY. Please fix.

Comments about the Current Article

Ok. I was just going to say that though there is a lot to go into this page, obviously, some minor details are being overlooked because of all this foolish obsessing over the larger. A large basis for faith is the firm belief in what one cannot confirm, but clearly the several accounts of Jesus, the Four Gospels of Canon, are in agreeance for the most part regarding His life and ministry, so it is certainly right to site that the sources for much of this page ARE drawn from Christian Tradition. However, as for the small things, several pages capitalise "He" in reference to God, and Christ as well in certain articles. Either this needs to be 'fixed' or the main article on the Man needs to be altered to match. Also, Jesus was risen, by modern standards, TWO days after He was burried; three was reference to the Jewish calender at the time. Also, as far as photographs go, they are completely unnecessary, but if you must have them, make sure they all display a variety of perspectives, especially considering none of us know what Jesus looked like, nor will we (or ... at least, i don't think we will). [MrLigit was responsible for this section. I wasn't signed in at the time this was created]

Notability concern

Jesus Christ is not in my opinion notable enough to have his own wikipage. hes never written a book or signed a sponsorship deal. Thats why I suggest merging this article with one on faith healers.

Well, we can verify a great deal about the subject through external writing (and signed sponsorship deals) through authors and publications that do meet our notability criterea. Ronabop 04:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's nonsense. Jesus Christ is the most influential Figure in history itself. Are you saying He doesn't merit a page of His own? The vast majority of people around the world are indeed Christians, and to deny the significance of Christ is no more than naïveté on your part[MrLigit]

The vast majority of people around the world are Christians  ?? Very very wrong thing to claim. Perhaps 1/10th of the people in strong "Christian" countries believe in the "son of god" claim. 2 billion in China and India dont believe in Jesus, so I only need an extra billion out of the remaining 4 to not believe in Jesus one little bit to have 50/50. So much for "vast majority".



I have a funny feeling that this "notability concern" is nothing but horseapples on purpose. To say that Jesus is not notable cannot be said without qualificiation. For anything remotely like it, it would have to be more of a statement of someone or some groups interpretation of Jesus. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 12:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Protection, how long?

...not very experienced with wikipedia, messed with a couple articles and regretted it later... but a topic like jesus will never be uncontroversial. the article can be protected from vandalism, but by doing so, insightful comments are excluded also. in a sense are "we" throwing the baby jesus out with the bath water? any comments on if, how this article could ever become unprotected? --Heavywithsediment 03:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this has happened before, (Over far less to boot), I wouldn't read too much into it. Homestarmy 06:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&oldid=62207174"