Talk:Jesus/Archive 55

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

10203040464748495051525354Archive 55565758596061626364708090100110120130


Initial proposal[edit]

Jesus of Nazereth
Era Jesus of Nazereth,
Region Religious Figures
School Judaism 1st Century
Main interests
Torah, Second Temple Judaism, Baptism
Notable ideas
Golden Rule

Seeing that this article is focused on Jesus, would it not make sense to put the Jesus infobox before the Christianity infobox? Also wouldn't it be a good thing to include a religious figure or philosopher infobox with summary info? I've put an example here, with example values. (Note, I don't expect example to be used, it's just an illustration. :-) ) אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 20:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. I do think that that pic should be used -- Jesus was not a blonde with blue eyes. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim62sch (talkcontribs) .
Well that pic's probably one of the closer ones we've got, all things considered. :-) However, what I actually did for the infobox shown here was to bastardize the Philosopher template. We might want to come up with our own, or see if there is one that already exists that is appropriate for our Galilean friend. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's see, I forgot to sign and misspelled blue -- pretty good. Anyway, now that you've got the template for the box you can basically modify it at will. Let's see what the others might want in there. •Jim62sch• 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the only real question is, why didn't we have this template box in the article sooner? Homestarmy 01:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
No one thought of it. •Jim62sch• 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty then, I'll pop a version of this (that's more readily customizable) into the main article and re-arrange the infoboxes that are currently there to make room. I'll keep the data similar to what's currently there (but clean it up and try to make it more accurate and in-line with the article) and we should discuss what we should do with it. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 02:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That picture is ridiculous - it's a reconstruction of the skull of somebody who was not Jesus. Artistic depictions of Jesus may not be historically accurate, but they're pictures which are meant to be of Jesus, while this picture is specifically of not Jesus. If there's to be a picture, it should be from an artistic depiction of Jesus, not some forensic reconstruction of some contemporary of Jesus. john k 02:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is up and, after a few tweaks (thanks Homestarmy) looking rather "purdy" :-) As for the picture, it's just as close as any other icon of Jesus that's out there, and it's more likely (or should I say statistically likely) to be closer based upon this character's color-scheme, features, and haircut. The reason that the forensic photo was put together in the first place was for a television special and the reconstruction was aimed at presenting a more feasible possibility. (But that's my 2 shekels worth.) אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 03:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Homes -- it is by far the closest to what Jesus is likely to have looked like. The other images of blond or dirty blond hair, blue eyes and a rather highly stylized North-Western European visage aren't even close. In fact, given Judean politics of the time, anyone who would have looked the way Jesus is often depicted would have been seen as an imposter aligned with the Romans. •Jim62sch• 13:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, the ethnically accurate picture is extremely distracting. My immediate response, instead of reading the article, was "what in the world is that?!" I'm all in favor of a semetic-looking pic, but that's plain bizzarre. He looks like he's in a police lineup. Jesus has a rich history of artwork. Why settle for this? What about this or a similar icon?
Image of the Saviour Not Made by Hand: a traditional Orthodox iconography in the interpretation of Simon Ushakov (1658).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by JBJ830726 (talkcontribs)

Given the eatern orthodox nature of the picture, it reflects a Jesus born in Greece or another land dominated by Hellenism. •Jim62sch• 13:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd still shy away from a white Jesus (I personally find it a bit degrading), or a Jesus-with-a-halo (which implies a specific theological framework), as all of those icons seem to be. The forensic Jesus is the most neutral depiction out of any images that I have seen on Wikipedia, and as such I believe is the best fit for the article we have collaboratively put together. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 03:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Are we going to use this infobox for other religious figures such as Moses, Mohammed and Buddha? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 03:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see someone try adding an infobox like this (with a picture) on the Muhammad article. Frankly, I agree this is a bit distracting and really isn't that informative. —Aiden 04:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It will never happen, because Wikipedia owner Jimmy Wales would be too afraid of being murdered if he allowed it. If you were to publically even seriously suggest it, you would probably be banned. Drogo Underburrow 04:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on the infobox:

1. The place of birth is Nazareth, Galilee (according to many scholars) or Bethlehem, Judea (according to Matthew and Luke).

2. One of his most important influences is obviously John the Baptist.

3. The Golden Rule would be an interest, clearly Jesus did not originate that. Probably also the Schema. Also the Prophets. Also Herod's Temple. Also Resurrection of the dead. Also the Kingdom of Heaven. Also Repentance.

4. Notable ideas? "Love your enemy", Turn the other cheek, Good Samaritan, Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, Parable of the Prodigal Son, The Friend at Night, The Unjust Judge —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Seems to me the Likely Given Name should be: Ἰησοῦς/Yea-soos in Greek as recorded, likely ישוע /Yea-shoo in Aramaic. 08:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the picture: National Geographic schowcased several forensic facial reconstructions of Tutankhamun[1][2]; the Discovery channel showcased Caroline Wilkinson's facial reconstructions of Rameses II and his eldest son, Amun-Her Khepeshef[3]; the BBC showcased Neave's reconstruction of Jesus[4]. Forensic facial reconstruction is used by police to find missing people and reconstruct the likenesses of dead people for identification where only skeletal remains are available[5], not to mention being used by the FBI[6]. The science is well respected, and has made significant advances in the last 20 years, and Neave is considered one of the leading experts in the field[7][8]. So the only real argument against the picture is that it is not of Jesus. But the caption specifically indicates that it is not Jesus, but a first-century Palestinian, which is the closest thing we have to Jesus. It is much more accurate than, for example, an iconic painting from 300 years later and 500 miles away, or the various artistic renditions which tend to recreate Jesus in the image of the artist (usually white Europeans). » MonkeeSage « 09:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I put a few of these suggestions into action. Remember, we only have so much room :-) אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 12:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
We don't know what Jesus specifically looked like, nor is it a proven fact that he even existed at all, so putting up an artist's guess of a first-century Palestinian (and who looks a bit goofy) simply makes a false visual impression. This info box isn't going to get a photo of Muhammed on the Muhammed page, so let's also leave off phony visual images of Jesus. If you want to have religious artwork on the page, that's a different story. Drogo Underburrow 13:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
"Goofy" shouldn't even be a word that we even consider to use in discussion to this topic. If he looks "goofy" take it up with all the other 1st Century Jews :-) אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 17:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The reconstruction is perfectly acceptable. These forensic reconstructions really are the closest thing we have to an image of Jesus, or anyone else from a time before photography or image-realistic paintings. It cuts right through the iconography and artistic interpretation (that has, over 2000 years, unbelievably deviated from reality), and gives us an image of what people from that time and place really looked like. Sure, he looks a little dazed, but wouldn't you?
And just to show that I'm not biased on this decision towards this article, I'd strongly support the addition of forensic reproductions of other great religious figures from a time before photography and image-realistic painting. The Buddha is depicted in a vast number of ways, based on the ethnicity of the artist, and the time, but a forensic reproduction of people from his time and place would help ground the article, I think. I'll do some research, but does anyone know if these reconstructions have been done for other religious figures? I'd assist in adding them to articles if they are available/properly licensed. Phidauex 15:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why the fact that this picture supposedly "looks more like Jesus" than actual artistic depictions of Jesus is an argument at all. It is not a picture of Jesus. It is not a picture which purports to be of Jesus. It is a picture of some hypothetical dude living around the same time as Jesus. It obviously says that, but the immediate visual impression is that this is a picture of Jesus, when, in fact, it is not a picture of Jesus. I don't mind the picture being somewhere in this article (or, at least, the Historical Jesus article), but I do mind it going in a Jesus infobox in place of a picture of Jesus. Far better to have an actual religious image of Jesus, or no image at all. john k 15:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Far better, why? For purposes of comfort? •Jim62sch• 23:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not some hypothetical person, it is based on a skull (selected from several) found in a burial-site in Jerusalem — it's a real person from Palestine at the time of Jesus. It was reconstructed by one of the most respected scientists in the field, and presented by a international science/news outlet as a more accurate depiction than the traditional imagery (see also: "The Real Face of Jesus", in Popular Mechanics, Dec. 2002[9]). I'm not saying it has to be in this infobox, in this article — but it certainly meets the criteria for WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV regardless of what anyone thinks of it (e.g., the irrelevant "cross-eyed" stuff below). » MonkeeSage « 16:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless it is not Jesus. This is like digging up a body of some random person in the 20th Century to show us what Albert Einstein may have looked like. It is really more novelty than informative. IMO the infobox as a whole really doesn't tell us much anyway. —Aiden 16:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not really like that at all, since historically, before the modern age of mass, high-speed transit, cultural/ethnical groups were much more isolated and therefore homogenous; a better example would be reconstructing a fifth-century BCE Chinese skull to show us what Lao Tse may have looked like. but it doesn't really matter what we think — respected third-party sources have claimed that it is the most accurate depiction we have, which makes it acceptable for use here. » MonkeeSage « 17:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The "random person in the 20th century" argument also doesn't take into account that the forensics artist knew that he was doing this to present an alternate image of Jesus, that artistics considerations were modified to reflect Jesus' demographics from eye color to hair to features. Overall, this forensics job, although very good, is probably not what the owner of the skull looked like (due to those parameters). אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 17:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Wait, why was I being agreed with up there, all I did was ask why it wasn't a template sooner and move one box lower heh. Now, really, I don't think its that bad a picture, but if it's just a guess, then that doesn't seem quite right to just leave in there with no explanation. I mean how do skulls determine facial hair patterns? With the disclaimer under the picture, I think it would be liveable to have it in the box. But there's so many other pictures to choose from which do, admittedly, all seem kinda different, even if we somehow decided to not use this forensics-y one, how will we decide from the rest of them heh. Homestarmy 18:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
See anthropology •Jim62sch• 23:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the documentary in which they used this "reconstruction" and the argument they were making was so inconclusive, that I cannot take this serious: Okay, let's take some skull we have dug up and postulate that all Jews have had similar ones, then flesh it out and deduct from a passage by Paul on short hair (addressed to Greeks) that Jesus would not have violated Paul's directive and hence had short hair, and than define that short hair means what we see here. Better to have no image than this one (except maybe further down with a caption like "20th century reconstruction"). If we want to include some image in the box, I propose the Turin Shroud. I have put it up in the poll. Str1977 (smile back) 20:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sudden e-mail immolation, I also have a problem with any forensic claim about skin tone. The area in question has been a cultural and commercial crossroads for five millennia and the "native" features have shifted with each wave of colonizers and conquerors. We have no idea what skin tone(s) predominated at the dawn of the CE. With all respect to MonkeySage, I doubt you could find a less ethnically-homogenous area than Palestine at the time in question. I humbly submit that the "true" face of Jesus is a subject that is neither appropriate to, nor likely to be solved by, consensus and should be left to each person until and unless you can produce either a reconstruction of His skull or a photograph of Him. There are already ten "pictures" of Jesus in this article; why even try to pick THE one for an infobox? PS to Steve: I completely agree that "goofy" should not be a word used in the context of a holy figure -- therefore, I suggest we remove the picture that is so aptly described by that adjective. Kevin/Last1in 20:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

1) There is no "Religious Figures" template; we would be creating one for this article alone, which I believe is not allowed. 2) The infobox is unnecessary. It takes up a lot of space and provides very little info not already given in the first few sentences of the article or in other more informative templates. Please, again, allow us to arrive at a consensus about the infobox before shoving it in the article at the expense of other (IMO) more informative templates. —Aiden 22:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
"which I believe is not allowed" -- what does it violate? All info-boxes started on one article and then spread. Kind of like religions, come to think of it. •Jim62sch• 23:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the idea of this template is neat, sometimes people just plain want information summarized neatly like that :/. Like on court case articles, they have this big old summary template thing. Homestarmy 22:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

From the Popular Mechanics article I referenced above:

An outgrowth of physical anthropology, forensic anthropology uses cultural and archeological data as well as the physical and biological sciences to study different groups of people, explains A. Midori Albert, a professor who teaches forensic anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. Experts in this highly specialized field require a working knowledge of genetics, and human growth and development. In their research they also draw from the fields of primatology, paleoanthropology (the study of primate and human evolution) and human osteology (the study of the skeleton). Even seemingly distant fields like nutrition, dentistry and climate adaptation play a role in this type of investigation.
While forensic anthropology is usually used to solve crimes, Richard Neave, a medical artist retired from The University of Manchester in England, realized it also could shed light on the appearance of Jesus. The co-author of Making Faces: Using Forensic And Archaeological Evidence, Neave had ventured in controversial areas before. Over the past two decades, he had reconstructed dozens of famous faces, including Philip II of Macedonia, the father of Alexander the Great, and King Midas of Phrygia. If anyone could create an accurate portrait of Jesus, it would be Neave.

So, once again, we don't have to use the picture, but respected third-party sources have called it the most accurate picture we have: so there is no problem, policy-wise, with using it. We don't have to, but we certainly can — all counter-arguments notwithstanding. » MonkeeSage « 12:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Cross-Eyed Jesus[edit]

I didn't know that Jesus was cross-eyed. He looks a bit cross-eyed to me in that photo. I think providing a forensic artistic guess as a photo illustration is a terrible idea. -- Drogo Underburrow 04:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be your perspective, he does not look cross-eyed to me. Would you prefer the idealized and historically inaccurate pictures that everyone grew up with? •Jim62sch• 13:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
How 'bout the one of Jesus, well manicured, carrying a cotton-ball white sheep, in a european valley leading a flock of puffy white sheep? 8-) --CTSWyneken 13:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Would the sheep be cross-eyed? -- Drogo Underburrow 13:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
"Would you prefer the idealized and historically inaccurate pictures that everyone grew up with?" Nope, but showing a facial reconstruction of an alleged 1st century gallilean John Doe doesn't help much either. It is like writing an article about Franz Beckenbauer using a picture of Hitler on the basis that germans have similar features... not to mention that such a photo would led some to believe (even only for a short moment) the guy in the picture IS actually Jesus. -- 16:59, 1 May 2006 (GMT+1)
I would most certainly prefer the idealized and historiccally inaccurate pictures that everyone grew up with, for the reason that those are pictures which are actually meant to depict Jesus. They also have historical and artistic significance, unlike the forensic monstrosity. john k 15:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, finally someone gave the real objection to the picture -- it is more comforting to imagine Jesus as a white blue-eyed blonde of significant stature, rather than as an olive-shinned dark-hear brown-eyed man who was no bigger then 5' 5". Sad really, that so mant bytes are being wasted on this discussion, especially by those who favour the idealistic representations. Focus on Jesus' message people -- the appearance shouldn't matter. •Jim62sch• 23:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
That is an incredible distortion of what I have said here. I don't give a fuck what Jesus looked like. A great number of depictions of Jesus do not show him as a blue-eyed blond (to be honest, I'd say that very few depictions of Jesus show him as blond - he's generally shown as a brunette.) What I do care about is that our picture of "Jesus" not be a picture which is explicitly not of Jesus. Given that there are no historically accurate representations of Jesus, I'd prefer a famous rendering of Jesus from the grand tradition of Jesus portraiture, however inaccurate that may be, to a generic forensic reconstruction of what a generic hypothetical person living in the same area as Jesus might have looked like. john k 06:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your argument isn't making any sense to me. What you are saying is that it's OK for an artist to made up a "this-is-what-Jesus-might-look-like-were-he-European" picture from his imagination alone, but not OK for a forensic depiction of what someone from that place and time actually would look like? As for someone else's question re "facial hair" -- see anthropology.
(The picture in the Lutheran Church I was raised in (up until age 13) had a Jesus with dirty-bond hair, not brown).
Finally john, see WP:CIVIL. •Jim62sch• 10:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Why should I see WP:CIVIL when you're the one essentially accusing me of being a racist? At any rate, my position is that Leonardo's picture of Jesus in The Last Supper, or whatever, is acceptable because it is a notable depiction of Jesus by a famous artist, even if it's not based on what Jesus looked like in life. The forensic reconstruction is a picture which is not acceptable as a picture of Jesus because it is not a picture of Jesus. It is specifically a picture of some other dude - apparently a skull from the same time and region as Jesus. It is not acceptable to present a picture of some other dude as though it is a picture of Jesus. And it is not acceptable either to have, instead of a picture of Jesus, a picture of some other dude, which says "this is some other dude that comes from the same place Jesus comes from." john k 17:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Assumning is something one ought not to do -- at no point did I accuse you of being a racist, and rather than make such an assumption you could simply have asked me if that was what I meant. What I said was, that you seemed comfortable with the picture of Jesus that most of us grew up with -- that the Jesus of that picture happens to be white, blue-eyed (sometimes browb), blond to dirty blond was a point regarding historical inaccuracy. If you take the time to go through the archives you'll see that I've raise similar point re historicity before.
As for the rest of your statement, it really is irrelevant now as the consensus was to go with the non-historical picture. Whatever -- historicity is just a concept anyway. •Jim62sch• 17:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
You're saying that this reconstruction is neither historical nor artistic? :-) That's a -really- big claim to make, seeing that it's the most historical reconstruction that we have given the ethnographic data, and that it was done by an acclaimed forensics artist. We're trying to be as historically accurate as possible, no? אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 17:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Attempting to generalize the facial features of an entire area about 2,000 years ago can't possibly go well and I seriously doubt statistically that it is historically accurate, that would require it to be nearly spot-on. Faces aren't really very generalize-able. But was the disclaimer originally placed in the box when it was put into the article at first, I can't remember :/. Homestarmy 18:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
As Homestarmy says, it is absurd to say that it is "historically accurate" to present some generalized facial features of people living in an entire area. By the way, the caption on the image at Historical Jesus used to say "A forensic reconstruction of a skull from the same time and place of Jesus, by forensic artist Richard Neave." But now it says "A hypothetical reconstruction of someone from the same time and place of Jesus, created by forensic artist Richard Neave." These are quite different things. The earlier version is basically admitting that this is not Jesus, but some other dude. The later version is saying that this is a hypothetical depiction. I don't think it ultimately matters, because I think that any image which is not explicitly a picture of Jesus is inappropriate, but I would like to know which it is. john k 06:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep, it was. I made sure of it. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 21:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Given the arguments enlisted above, I'd say it's almost irrelevant in depicting Jesus (and therefore in the context of this article). Even if it would be relevant, what should be the purpose of that reconstruction anyway ?! "Destroy the myth" or "Let's try to be more accurate than paintings"? ...because some people argue as if it would be the case. Changing the perception of how actually Jesus might have looked doesn't add (or take away) anything to/from Jesus legacy IMO. Nor having in mind this reconstructed humanoid instead of a classical, Robert Powell-like Jesus would make one less a believer. After all, I don't expect people in other parts of the world to depict/imagine Jesus exactly as "we" (europeans & americans) do (e.g. Coptic Church). -- 21:45, 1 May 2006 (GMT+1)
Well it really is a matter of which culture the icons come from. We have European Jesus, Greek Jesus, Black Jesus, Indian Jesus, etc. etc. etc.. The forensic reconstruction is, by it's nature (based off of ethnographic data), less culturally biased, iconographically biased, and religiously biased, and is the best fit for Wikipedia's NPOV. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 21:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well NPOV is one thing, but should accuracy be sacrificed to lessen possible biases? It's entirely possible that some of the very early depictions of Jesus, even though a couple centuries off, may of been pretty close to accurate. And its not like any of the pictures is trying to convert people, unless there's like some subtle hypnotism going on, which would be pretty cool, but all the same, i'd say its unlikely. I think what we ought to do is investigate some of the forensic thing, like Str was going on about, apparently he feels that their conclusions to make this image were spurious or something, I think its worth discussing. Homestarmy 22:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's an issue. There's a lot of 1st century AD Jews whom we don't have accurate images of. Why is that image to be used as an image in a Jesus infobox, only? Couldn't it just as easily refer to, say, Herod Antipas, Philip the Tetrarch, Agrippa I, Agrippa II, Caiaphas, Annas, Josephus, Simon Peter, John the Baptist, John the Apostle, James the Great, James the Less, James the Just, Saint Andrew, Gamaliel, Judas Iscariot, Shammai, Eleazar ben Simon, Paul of Tarsus, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.? Once again, the image seems to be a reconstruction of the skull of some other dude who isn't any of these people, including Jesus. Why on earth do we have a picture of some other dude in a space which is normally reserved for pictures of the subject? This moron is not only a white male of approximately the same age, and from approximately the same area of the world as me (the United States), he also has the same name as me. That wouldn't make it acceptable to put survivor-contestant John Kenney's picture into a hypothetical article about me and say "a picture of a person with the same name as John Kenney, and from approximately the same part of the world and similar age." That would be ridiculous. I don't see why it's any less ridiculous to do essentially the same thing with a forensic reconstruction of the skull of some dude who wasn't Jesus. john k 06:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Image Poll[edit]

This is a simple poll to deterine what image we're going to put up. Add further suggestions below as new section headings.

Forensic Reconstruction[edit]

thumb|left|Time of Jesus Forensic Reconstruction
Note:Fair Use Images can only be used in the main namespace, and must be linked to from other namespaces, including Talk. Deskana

  1. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 17:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC) It follows all Wikipedia policies to a T. It is not original research, it is creed-neutral (every icon is not), it was created with the purpose to investigate what Jesus would have looked like, and overall it is the most historically accurate rendition that exists (statistically).
    IM(not-so)HO, I'd say dump this one. The article is titled, "Jesus", not "People Who Might Have Looked Like Jesus". If, for the sake of argument, everyone agreed that the picture was meant to represent Jesus himself (which the creators of the image pointedly do NOT claim), it has no more place in this article than any other image from the last 1800 years -- all of them meant to depict the "real" Jesus as he was understood at the time. The image is non-encyclopaedic and, frankly, a little cheesy. Kevin/Last1in 19:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    I have mixed feelings about this one. Ethnographically, it's probably closer to what Jesus actually looked like than any artistic representation, but OTOH this is based on a skull that no one claims belonged to Jesus. So it's both more accurate and misleading. It's a first-century Palestinian all right, but no one claims that it's actually Jesus. It could be James the Just, or an anonymous Pharisee, or someone else for all we know. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 12:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. •Jim62sch• 23:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. » MonkeeSage « 12:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Only picture we have that meets WP:V (BBC, Popular Mechanics) as an accurate (rather than artistic) representation.
    It is definitely an artistic representation, while its accuracy is quite dubious. Better no picture, than this one." Str1977 (smile back) 14:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    So you (and several others) say, but that doesn't have much to do with the encyclopedia (unless you're a credible third-party resource). Of course, you're allowed to express your opinion and help form consensus, I just wanted to remind folks that we are not supposed to be representing what we think Jesus looked like (or didn't look like) here, unless it can be verified externally by a reputable source. » MonkeeSage « 15:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    Don't like this one at all. AnnH 20:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Turin Shroud negative[edit]


  1. Arguebly the most famous depiction of Jesus; research suggest it to be at least from the time and place of Jesus. It is not Original research, "creed-neutral" (no icon and no halo), it was not created but actually is a relic and has the advantage of not being based on dodgy methods as the "reconstruction" is. Str1977 (smile back) 19:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
From what I've read (which could be wrong/out of date), the Shroud probably comes from the 10-13 centuries, not the 1st century. In my mind, the Shroud is grouped with bigfoot and alien abduction, and I feel, whether it is authentic or not, it still connotes the paranomal/psuedo-science. Therefore, I would not support this as an image for Jesus. I wouldn't mind using a historical work of art though (with a caption explaining the artistic context and religious POV). --Andrew c 21:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Ehrm, simply looking at it as an image itself, it seems a bit....obscure looking when compared to some of the other fairly nice looking images we've got. But after that, then you get into the entire turin shroud controversy, which might lead to a bunch of people coming in here going on about "THATS NOT JESUS BECAUSE WE FOUND SOMETHING THAT SEEMED SORT OF LIKE PAINT MAYBE KINDA SORTA" and all that, I don't think we want that kind of trouble. Homestarmy 21:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I hate to break this news here, but the Shroud of Turin was, and still is, a hoax. •Jim62sch• 23:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that not all Christians believe in relics. The shroud is inappropriate at best. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 11:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I hope you WILL NOT feature this image together with the main article. No serious encyclopedia would do such a thing and I don't even need to bore you with arguments as to why. Why not showing how people imagined him throughout the history, starting with earliest extant paintings till now? How about various representations according to geographic criteria, such as eastern/western Christianity (e.g. Rublev vs. Michelangelo). -- 23:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice, but probably too Catholic for a general article on Jesus. AnnH 20:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Eastern Orthodox picture thing[edit]

Christ pantocrator daphne1090-1100.jpg I just plain think that this is just a good looking picture, I mean its pretty head on and close up, and its reasonably clear. So yea, the Greek Orthodox may of made it. Does this mean the Greek Orthodox's works can never be considered anything other than "Their personal, radically different than everyone else's view"? Barring a better image, I think at the very least this one will do for now, we can just move this up to the top of the page from where it currently is. And unless its somehow sending out convert-o beams, I don't see how its not relatively neutral. Homestarmy 18:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A different picture[edit]

No picture[edit]

  1. For the moment, unless we can come up with something better. AnnH 20:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No opinion[edit]

  1. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 11:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Although I like the anon IP idea above about using pictures through the ages and from east/west interpretations. Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 11:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    See Images of Jesus. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 21:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Poll results (thusfar)[edit]

(Since the discussion is cluttering the above poll a bit, here's a summary of what we have so far:)

3 - Forensics image
1 - Shroud of Turin
2 - "Switzerland"
1 - No image

Infobox data[edit]

The place of birth is Nazareth, Galilee (according to many scholars) or Bethlehem, Judea (according to Matthew and Luke).

Other Interests: Schema, Prophets, Herod's Temple, Resurrection of the dead, Kingdom of Heaven, Repentance

Other Notable ideas: Turn the other cheek, Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, Parable of the Prodigal Son, The Friend at Night, The Unjust Judge

Seems to me the Likely Given Name should be: Ἰησοῦς/Yea-soos in Greek as recorded, likely ישוע /Yea-shoo in Aramaic. ע is a Voiced pharyngeal fricative, not a sound in English and probably not pronounced in Galilean Aramaic. See also Hebrew_alphabet#Numerical_value_and_pronunciation

Notable ideas: God as "Father" Comment: Not notable to Jesus, this is Pharisaic influence.

Wait, why Schema, the Wiki article just says that's "a plan"? And if Jesus said something as an idea, it counts as His idea too :/. Homestarmy 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, very funny, try Shema, Mark 12:28-34 also called the "Greatest Commandment".

"My Father" John 8:54 as opposed to "Our Father" (Lord's Prayer) might be an idea unique to Jesus. 19:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Two Ways" (basis of Didache chapters 1-6) were a significant influence on Jesus. "It would appear from his interviews with the scribe ([Mark]xii. 29-31; comp. Luke x. 27) and with the rich young man ([Mark]x. 19) that he was acquainted with the Didache in its Jewish form, accepting its teachings as summing up the whole of Jewish doctrine."[10] "As a matter of fact the entire New Testament teaching is based upon the Jewish Didache (see Seeberg, "Katechismus der Urchristenheit," 1903, pp. 1-44)."

Another of Jesus' interests was Exorcism, the casting out of demons.

"In essentials Jesus' teaching was that of John the Baptist, and it laid emphasis on two points: (1) repentance, and (2) the near approach of the kingdom of God. One other point is noted by Christian theologians as part of his essential teaching, namely, insistence upon the fatherhood of God. This is such a commonplace in the Jewish liturgy and in Jewish thought that it is scarcely necessary to point out its essentially Jewish character (see Father). As regards repentance, its specifically Jewish note has been recently emphasized by C. G. Montefiore ("J. Q. R." Jan., 1904), who points out that Christianity lays less stress upon this side of religious life than Judaism; so that in this direction Jesus was certainly more Jewish than Christian."[11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Another of Jesus' interests: Parables

Another quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia: "While claiming not to infringe or curtail the Law, Jesus directed his followers to pay more attention to the intention and motive with which any act was done than to the deed itself. This was by no means a novelty in Jewish religious development: the Prophets and Rabbis had continuously and consistently insisted upon the inner motive with which pious deeds should be performed, as the well-known passages in Isa. i. and Micah vi. sufficiently indicate."

"Indeed, the most striking characteristics of the utterances of Jesus, regarded as a personality, were the tone of authority adopted by him and the claim that spiritual peace and salvation were to be found in the mere acceptance of his leadership. Passages like: "Take my yoke upon you . . . and ye shall find rest unto your souls" (Matt. xi. 29); "whosoever shall lose his life for my sake . . . shall save it" (viii. 35); "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" (Matt. xxv. 40), indicate an assumption of power which is certainly unique in Jewish history, and indeed accounts for much of modern Jewish antipathy to Jesus, so far as it exists. On the other hand, there is little in any of these utterances to show that they were meant by the speaker to apply to anything more than personal relations with him; and it might well be that in his experience he found that spiritual relief was often afforded by simple human trust in his good-will and power of direction."

"He had from the beginning laid stress upon the difficulty of associating sanctity with riches; and in this he adopted the quasi-socialistic views of the later Psalms, Ps. ix., x., xxii., xxv., xxxv., xl., lxix., cix. (comp. I. Loeb, "La Littérature des Pauvres dans la Bible," Paris, 1894). He insisted to the fullest extent on the view implied in those Psalms and in various utterances of the Prophets, that poverty and piety, riches and antisocial greed, were practically synonymous (comp. the form of the beatitudes given in Luke vi. 20, 24-26)."

That would make Poverty one of his interests.

"Another departure from pharisaic as well as Essenic practise was his permission to his disciples to eat with unwashed hands. When rebuked he declared: "Whatsoever from without entereth into the man can not defile him, but that which proceedeth out of the man [evil speech], that defileth the man" (Mark vii. 15 and parallels)—a principle which scarcely implied the Paulinian abrogation of the dietary laws, but was probably intended to convey the idea that "the profane can not defile the word of God" (Ber. 22a)."

"Jesus spoke with the power of the Haggadists—compare, e.g., "the men of little faith" (Soṭah 48b); "the eye that lusts, the hand that sins must be cut off" (Nid. 13b); "no divorce except for fornication" (Giṭ. 90b); "purity like that of a child" (Yoma 22a)—and not like the men of the Halakah (Luke iv. 32; comp. Matt. vii. 29, "not like the scribes")."

Proposed Infobox[edit]

Religious Figures
Jesus of Nazereth
Likely Given Name: Ἰησοῦς as recorded in Greek, likely ישוע in Aramaic
Born: 8-2 BC/BCE (Nazareth, Galilee or Bethlehem, Judea)
Died: 29-36 AD/CE (Jerusalem)
School/tradition: Judaism, 1st Century
Associated with Christianity, Islam
Main interests
Grassroots-Judaism, "Law and Prophets", Herod's Temple, Resurrection, Kingdom of God, Repentance, Exorcism, Poverty, Parables, Authoritative Debate
Notable ideas
Love your enemies, God as "My Father", Turn the other cheek, Good Samaritan, Prodigal Son
Influences Influenced
John the Baptist, Roman Empire, The Two Ways, Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes Peter, James the Just, St. Paul, and countless others...

This is quite a bit of original research. How do we know what Jesus' interests were? How do you know what his influences were? Christians think his influence was God--others may disagree. Which POV do you take? Do you include every possible influence with qualifiers as to who believes what? We have no definitive proof as to what his 'likely name' was; how do you decide which ones stay and go? How do you summarize the ministry of Jesus in a few 'notable ideas'? Were the rest not notable? Who decides? I forsee so many problems with this infobox. There is a big difference between the matter-of-fact-outcome infoboxes of US Supreme Court decisions or historical events and this. Sorry to say but I don't think it would help the article at all. —Aiden 01:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not original research, it's all well documented, read Jesus and the cites above. We know what Jesus' interests are from the Gospels. Likewise for the influences, also add historical context. Having God as an influence merely makes him a Religious Figure. Yes, we have plenty of evidence of what his name was, see Names and titles of Jesus for references. Summarizing information is very useful for an encyclopedic article. 01:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all you're attributing a straw man to me. Let's take the "Main Interests" section (as opposed to the "Minor interests" like carpentry we've decided to omit): The Gospels say a lot about everything listed here, specifically how Jesus was involved with the objects in this list, but nowhere does it say Jesus was "interested" in Herod's Temple or "Grassroots-Judaism." The "Notable ideas" section: As I said before, who is to say which ideas are notable and which aren't? "Influences": Jesus was influenced by John the Baptist? I could have sworn it was the other way around. "Roman Empire": Well I guess that is a bit ambiguous as everyone living in ancient Israel was influenced by the Roman Empire in some form or another. Jesus actively debated and criticized the Pharisees and Sadducees. Surely then they influenced him; but what does that mean? This box is nothing but a lot of conjecture and ambiguities--it first and foremost is not encyclopedic, nor does it give any great insight into Jesus one couldn't gain from reading the introduction or skimming through the article. —Aiden 01:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Most of the form of the table I put together was taken from the Template:Infobox_Philosopher, hence "main interests" etc., as an attempt to put together a generic overview that could be re-used by other religious figures. "Main interests" is vestigial from the philosophy template. Can we be certain of any philosopher's "main interests"? Not as much as we would like, but it's a formal category. John the Baptist, many scholars believe Jesus was influenced by, and if one takes a purely Gospel-centric position, they might come to the conlusion that Jesus came first. However, the Baptist movement was a direct opposition to the increasing seclusion of ritual purity that the Pharisees and Saducees had a monopoly on and was a form of grassroots Judaism in and of itself. They kept ritually pure by immersing ("baptizing") in the Jordan river, rather than the elaborate Pharisee-controlled miqvaot (as a daily ritual, rather than the "baptized-once" paradigm in modern Christianity). This sort of un-brokered ritual purity and relationship with God is something that Jesus seems to have shared in common with this movement, however, Jesus moved away from the rough acetecism of the Baptists. Rome also played a big part in this overarching psychology to bring forth a personal, unbrokered religion: They were actively oppressing Judaism. Ponitus Pilate erected images of the emperor in the temple, and sacrificed pigs on the altar, much to the disgrace of the Jews... who protested and were clubbed by plainclothes officers at his command. I'll have to get a copy of my colleague Dan Gaztambide's paper (it's an honors thesis at Rutgers University about the psychology behind the early formation of Christianity). This was -active- oppression, and it was a large influence. ... But I ramble.. The original idea behind the infobox was to provide a quick bio with quick links that would be useful to the average Wikipedian... I need sleep... :-) אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 04:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"the Baptist movement was a direct opposition to the increasing seclusion of ritual purity that the Pharisees and Saducees had a monopoly on" - I have no idea what you mean by refering to some increasing seclusion of ritual puritymonopolized by the Pharisees; I would characterize them in opposite terms. But my point is not for us to argue over the nature of the Pharisees or John. My point is that you are expressing a particular point of view. i have no objection to including this view in the article as long as it is presented as a view, and not as the truth, and as long as there is room for other views. I think the main problem with the infobox is that it takes one point of view and reifies and privileges it. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I humbly suggest that we STOP discussing what should be in this box reach consensus on the box itself: (1) Is an infobox important to improve the article? (2) Can any infobox be constructed that will be NPOV? (3) Is the proposed infobox template the best infobox for this article? Without agreement on these points, I believe the rest of the discussion is moot. Kevin/Last1in 14:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

To provide my opinions on my own questions: (1) I do not think an infobox will improve this article. I do not think you can condense Jesus' person or teachings into such a box. To summarize any religion's central figure in such a box would trivialize the figure and likely enrage his/her adherents. (2) I think it's obvious from the existing discussion that the proposed infobox will (or has already) become nothing more than another POV battlefield. There are 53 archived pages of vitriol and venom for this article; why sew a new minefield until we clear this one? (3) If consensus is reached that we need an infobox and that an NPOV on can be written, I think the proposed template is great, possibly ideal. Kevin/Last1in 14:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, this article does probably need something up at the top, whether its a box or a picture. An infobox doesn't seem that bad, and im not enraged, I just don't see any attack from this userbox. Now, there is currently some innacuracies it seems, being "interesting" in Herod's temple seems odd, and I don't see how the Roman Empire "influenced" Jesus, but I think the idea of this box overall is nice, we really could use something up top of this article and before this box there was nothing. Homestarmy 15:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Religious Figures
Jesus of Nazereth
This is only a test. Be happy. No first-hand paintings or photographs of Jesus exist.
Likely Given Name: Ἰησοῦς as recorded in Greek, likely ישוע in Aramaic
Born: 8-2 BCE/BC (Nazareth, Galilee or Bethlehem, Judea)
Died: 29-36 CE/AD (Jerusalem)
School/tradition: Judaism, 1st Century
Associated with Christianity, Islam
Notable ideas
Love your enemies, God as "My Father", Turn the other cheek, Good Samaritan, Prodigal Son
I'm with Homestarmy in that if were to include at least something at the beginning of the article that it would not only make it look more professional, but give a reader assurance whether or not they've found what they're looking for. As I've said before, most of the fields on the table are vestigial from the Philosopher Infobox, which is what I based it on. Perhaps we can keep the info that lies before the "Main Interests" (given name, birth, death, school, association) and -possibly- an agreed upon picture of some sort? These seem the least controversial and most concrete (heh, besides the picture). אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 15:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC) (Edit: Perhaps something like this: on the right אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

Okay, in response to Kevin's constructive questions, I am opposed to the infobox for two reasons. first is aesthetic: I do not think that the tops of articles should be too cluttered. All articles of any size have a table of contents, fine. But this one also has an index to related articles. Anything more than that I think becomes unnecissarily cluttered. Second, many people think Jesus is a fictional character. I happen not to be one of them. I think he existed - but I also think that we know far less about him than we do about Derrida or Nietzsche or Marx. Even under the best of circumstances whatever goes into an infobox is going to be either bland and trivial beyond belief, or controversial. I say, let's focus on other things. This is all I have to say - if most people disagree with me i will not put up any argument. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a bunch of white space to the right of the table of contents. Is there a way to fill this space? Drogo Underburrow 17:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything Kevin said. —Aiden 18:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
...then you must not have seen my User page. ; ) Kevin/Last1in 19:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that image to the right is the best. That should be inserted in the Jesus page, for sure. LOL. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The happy face should be inserted as the illustration. -- Drogo Underburrow 03:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
What, now instead of salvation, Jesus offers always the lowest price on the brands you trust (always)? Rolling back prices to save you even more? I'm sorry, but the Wal-Mart employee/mascot has got to go. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 11:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that might "cheapen" the message (sorry mate, couldn't resist). I also have a slight problem with the mental image of Jesus-as-smiley chasing the moneychangers from the Temple... Have we considered a simple crucifix? It admirably combines the central symbol of Christianity with a portrait of the article's subject. Not to be pernickety, but I still don't see a consensus here that the infobox is even worth the trouble (or the strife). Kevin/Last1in 14:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Wal-Mart is a very Christian company, headquartered in the heart of the Bible belt. I bet you didn't know they used an image of Jesus. It's one of their secrets of success, subliminal advertising. -- Drogo Underburrow 14:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Heh, some of the literature I've received implies that Wal-Mart is run by Satan. I just put in an application there today, but perhaps I've sold my soul? Kevin, I like the idea of the crucifix. Perhaps we should also run a poll over whether or not to even have an infobox? I've got mixed feelings about the idea myself.Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Getting back on topic: one other point that is bound to piss someone off: in the test infobox we have only "positives" for notable ideas. Not exactly an accurate depiction biblically, now is it? •Jim62sch• 17:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And what would you say is a more accurate Biblical description of the ideas Jesus presented? Homestarmy 18:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Luke 14:26? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Well it clearly had to be meaning hate as in compared to the love you have for Jesus, the love you have for your parents should seem like hatred by comparison. Otherwise you'd be failing to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul" and all that, plus it'd be pretty odd for Jesus to say "Whosoever teaches people to break these commandments will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" and then turn around and do just that, you know? Homestarmy 00:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think he/she wants to know. —Aiden
But I like to defend the Bible! :( Homestarmy 00:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh that's fine. :) I was just making the point that the person who left that comment obviously is not interested engaging in a meaninful discussion of the issue at hand. —Aiden 00:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
(ri)Homes, that argument above isn't so much a defense as an excuse. In any case, yes, that was one of the ideas to which I was referring. •Jim62sch• 17:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if a defense did not excuse the grounds of the objection, i'd say it wouldn't be very effective :/. Homestarmy 17:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Cute, but we're using different senses of "excuse". •Jim62sch• 01:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Since we're already off-topic, I'd like to point out that the parallel passage to Luke 14:26 (viz., Matt. 10:37) has "loves father or mother more", demonstrating the sense of "love less" for "hate" in Luke 14:26, rather than the sense of "spite". So "does not [love] his own father and mother [less] [than me]", or stated conversely "loves father or mother more [than me]". » MonkeeSage « 04:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." NASB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Jesus is not promoting hating others or family members, but rather stating what would likely happen in many cases, and has - a member of the family becomes a follower of Jesus to the chagrin of the rest of the family. The person has put Jesus and God ahead of his family connections and a consequence would be that the family would disapprove and even turn against the person. "He who has found his life will lose it" - recognize where your life comes from and who you belong to. That's what it all means. --Oscillate 22:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Cult of personality? 05:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't politics :/. Besides, my dad gets angry at me all the time because I take Christianity more seriously than I take school or "not getting in trouble", does that mean I actually caused the hatred? Homestarmy 20:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The "real" Jesus looked like Frank Zappa of course!
» MonkeeSage « 01:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we even want an infobox?[edit]

Current vote tally: 2-13-3


  1. Yes - It gives the user some needed information as to what they have to expect from this article. (And if not, I think that the Christianity template should take second place to the Jesus Template as Jesus is the main focus of this article. :-) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Thadman (talkcontribs)
  2. Yes - Makes the article look more professional, quick access to relevant info. But I don't insist; I'm fine with whatever the consensus is. » MonkeeSage « 00:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


  1. Definitely not. —Aiden 18:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. No There are enough things to fight about! Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 18:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. No Per Sophia (gasp!) Dominick (TALK) 18:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. No. Enough strife without it. Use Christianity Series box or nothing. Kevin/Last1in 21:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. No. It crudely popularizes the basic info I think. Brand 00:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. No The infobox being proposed is hideous and forces Jesus into inaccurate and humorous categories and associatons. Judgesurreal777 01:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. No Hard to see how it could possibly be any good. john k 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. No It does not add anything of value; it will be virtually impossible to come up with a fully NPOV one that also makes snese without being bland. In short, unnecessary and not worht the trouble. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Not really - it hardly adds any real info (influences? please!) and the constraints of such a box creates problems in some cases (I only say "birth place") ... and a dispute about the picture. Str1977 (smile back) 17:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. No. It hardly seems necessary to vote at this stage, but I agree with Sophia. AnnH 21:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. No Probably impossible to have an NPOV one - will just be something else to fight about --JimWae 00:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. No - I would support Str1977 POV on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm Rider (talkcontribs)
  13. No You think we had a fight over the second paragraph... Besides.. I hate infoboxes. But that's my POV 8-) --CTSWyneken 00:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


  1. I've got mixed feelings about this. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. An infobox, I think, would be a really neat idea. But if people really dislike it, I guess its not that important. I still think we need a picture of Jesus at top right though. Homestarmy 18:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Yes - if the yellow smiley face is used as the illustration of Jesus. Otherwise, no. -- Drogo Underburrow 18:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


It's now 2-8-3 against the infobox. That's 15%-62%-23% (rounded). How long do we want to keep this poll open? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 12:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that's enough. I retract all of my efforts. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 15:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"...what I actually did for the infobox shown here was to bastardize the Philosopher template....(Steve Caruso)"(emphasis added). Wow, and what (if anything) would Jesus be considered if one is not a member of a religion that recognizes him as a prophet/saviour? •Jim62sch• 17:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That's more than half of humanity, counting Islam+Christianity+the smaller religions that believe one or two of those things (Bahai, Rastafarians, Unificationists &c). OTOH, from a non-religious perspective I can understand characterizing Jesus as a philosopher. (I asked about the "Philosophical view of Jesus" a while ago.) He agreed with some ideas of the Pharisees and some ideas of the Essenes, while disputing some of their ideas and also putting forward some fairly unique ideas. Thus, I can see how Pharisees and Essenes can be listed as "influences"; not sure why the Sadducees were listed as influences.
But as I said, I have mixed feelings (which is why I voted "maybe"). As some have noted, views in Jesus are diverse enough that to reduce them to an infobox could easily lead to religious conflict. While I think the infobox is a neat idea in theory, in practice it will always be controversial. As several people noted, do we really need the trouble? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 19:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly not going to disagree with you, it likely would cause a lot of trouble. I'm just noting both an irony and an apropos nature to the idea of an infobox. •Jim62sch• 01:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, I just noticed that anon IP (talk · contribs) added the long version of the infobox to the Historical Jesus article. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 18:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

For a more religious perspective, check out the Saints infobox in James the Just, Paul of Tarsus and similar articles. I wonder if there is a way to reconcile or combine the Philospher/Religious figure infobox with the Saint infobox? Not to mention Template:Prophets in the Qur'an. Ah, but we decided not to have an infobox. Oh, well. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 19:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I also like the idea of an infobox, and it is standard fare for WP, especially for influential figures (the articles you mentioned as well as, e.g., Selassie, Hirohito, Kamehameha). Whether it should have a picture, and if so which; and what information it should contain; and what the headings should be; are all separate issues from whether we should have an infobox. But if the community is against having one, I can respect the consensus. » MonkeeSage « 06:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)