Talk:Jesus/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Anon comment

can I suggest that it can not be considered a good article any longer? And who might you be? Deskana (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• ever since this article became a candidate for feature article status & then failed, the article has become increasingly biased --JimWae 21:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• I have seen no disagreement (except by me) to repeated comments that this is "a Christian article" --JimWae 00:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus and Anti-Semitism

Expanded original section with additional information. Please post any comments, concerns, etc, here. Something about this article leads people to simply arbitrarily delete things out of it rather than attempt to discuss it for whatever reason. Lets please try to change this trend and instead act as most other Wiki articles do, and actually discuss changes. pookster11 00:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The leaders of the 2 largest Christian denominations speak for more than half of the world's 2 Billion Christians and they are clearly against anti-semitism, so if you're really trying to fight anti-semitism you should focus on the EU and the UN. Jesus, Son of David, is on your side. Didn't you realize most of the founders of Christianity were Jews? - Rev. Thomas S. Painter (R) - 11:46, 31 January 2006 (EST)

The section you created (which is completely unsourced) doesn't belong in an article on Jesus; rather, it belongs in an article on later Christianity and anti-Semitism (of which an article already exists.) Aiden 00:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Second.Gator (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And the section written, with background information, deals with the way that the Jewish background of Jesus had fit into and been used in regards to anti-Semitism. The background is a bit extensive, I agree, and would absolutely be willing to edit it down as necessary, but I think the topic is directly relevant to Christian anti-Semitism and how the person and background of Jesus has fit into the beliefs of anti-Semitism. Also, which sections do you believe need more sourcing? Let me know, I'll plug the sources in. pookster11 00:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be about Jesus much - more about Julius Caesar and Constantine. There is no evidence that I know of that there was any attempt to make Jesus's features look un-Jewish. That's a debate from the 19th Century. not the ancient period. Paul B 00:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the article, there seems to be a brewing edit war about this section and I want to nip it in the bud. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Jesus and his life, not later Christianity and anti-Semitism. This wasn't even an issue in this period; and (though we can infer) Jesus could not have possibly had views relating to the modern definition of anti-Semitism. This information is a) poorly written b) unsourced and c) not even relevant to the article you've added it to. Aiden 00:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Many biographical articles have a legacy section. The Barabbas incident, and Jesus' harsh words about Jews & Jewish leaders very much contributed to a legacy of anti-Semitism. AND why are discussions only 2 days old archived already? --JimWae 21:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone who is anti-semetist b/c of Jesus must be ignorant. For one thing, Jesus was Jewish and preached to Jews. He taught about loving everyone unconditionally. If Christians become bigots, it is not because of Jesus, because if they went by what he said and did, they would not be anti-semetist. Unsigned

Intro

If the intro is to state the "christian" POV then it should be balanced by including the no-"chrsitain" and the non-theist positions too. The current intro is POV in the extreme.

I agree with moving the list of Scholars from the intro - that was very cumbersome and poorly written - but the new intro is POV. Robsteadman 09:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The current intro explains the Christian POV, which it needs to. Contrary views, if brief, should be below this or in a subsequent section. ^rossnixon 10:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that there is no specific non-Christian opinion of Jesus. The majority view among non-Christian scholars is that he was a millenialist Jew - not untypical of the period - though with some distinctive ideas. I don't suppose any survey has been done, but I suspect that's also similar to the majority view of most ordinary non-Christians with no special knowledge of the period. If you can find adequate phrasing for that position, then fine. But sticking with the line that he disn't exist is counter-productive. Paul B 11:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately as they say "The facts however interesting are irrelevant". You have not a snowball's chance in hell of getting an edit to stand on the top paragraph that states why some people don't think Jesus existed. The current situation with a link in the background sections acknowledges the minority view and points the interested reader further. If they are not interested they won't read it anyway. The Historicity section of this article is POV currently as it does glide completely over the controversy. Again, a mention of this minority view is all that is required for balance. This is not "fringe" or that radical as all it does is acknowledge the undisputed fact that outside of the Christian writings there is virtually nothing to confirm that Jesus lived. What little evidence there is is circumstantial or disputed. The real meat of the argument takes place on the Historicity of Jesus page which I think need some work as currently the non Christian writings are down played with a paragraph above stating that as no one was interested in the middle east you wouldn't expect much. This is a definite POV slant on things so needs to be worked on. Maybe we establish links here and then move to the Historicity of Jesus where there is room to reference and get into detailed facts.

I'm wondering why the article is currently locked as I can see no evidence of vandalism - just an edit war which I though was dealt with by tackling the users involved not keeping out all edits?SOPHIA 11:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything [User:SOPHIA|SOPHIA]] has written and had thought that, apart from the retrention of the long list of scholars names, the solution that was on the page for a while yesterday evening was a good compromise. The page should not be protected in this way - this is censorship. When it is unprotected is it possible to have a "The neutrality of this page os disputed" sign on it please. {{NPOV}} Robsteadman 15:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

As Jesus is the founder and central figure of Christianity and does not even play a role in many other religions, it is only common sense that the main focus of the article be Jesus in Christianity, to a lesser degree in Islam, and an even lesser degree in religions to which he is not "important" or unmentioned. Aiden 18:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If the article is about "jesus" it is important to have in the first sentence something along the lines (though better written) "Despite there being no extent contemporary documents to prove that Jesus existed (see; Historicity article, Jesus Myth article, etc.) he is considered the central figure and founer of Christianity." Robsteadman 18:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, as long as the issue is dealt with in the article at an appropriate point. KHM03 18:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

So is the article about "jesus" or about "christianity/other religions views of "jesus"? It says its about "jesus" - so the verifiable facts should be at the top the rest lower down. Robsteadman 18:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the most prominent ideas should be given prominence, with other views mentioned later. So...how does the historicity section look to you? Is it fair? Or is this about the intro section? KHM03 18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

the section is infee - it should,as mentioned on another section on this talk page, be in the intro. It is fundamental to the article. Majority opinions can be used as an example of .. well.. majority opinion - ibut it does not verify the existence of the subject of the article. Robsteadman 18:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

But if most of academia affirms his existence, shouldn't that also factor into our decisions? KHM03 18:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

They "believe" he existed they cannot verify it. This is an important difference. Robsteadman 18:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

But that's a debate for them...not for us. I think we should simply state what we can, from the prevailing opinion...mentioning the other position at some fair point and (most importantly, I think), give links to other articles where the position can be discussed in more detail. KHM03 18:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

NO! Opinions could be mentioned further down the article for each side. The intro should be about verifiable fact. The verifiable facts are that "jesus" is the central character for "christianity" and that there are no extent contem[porary documents to prove his existence the earliest being written around two generations after his death. Robsteadman 18:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This is taken from the Images of Jesus introduction "There are no undisputed historical images of Jesus. There is no reliable evidence that a surviving portrait of him exists" there should be a similar one in the article about Jesus Ghais 18:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Except that while academia readily agrees that we have no images of Jesus from his lifetime, they pretty much also agree that he existed (though there is a minority which disputes that, certainly). KHM03 18:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No they also agree we have no contemporary documents that prove he exiosted. if you can disprove them please list the documents here.... Robsteadman 18:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Right now the intro presents ONLY religious views of Jesus and makes NO mention of that which even most non-believers hold to be true about him - while the article itself DOES present some of that - which it most definitely must to be of any historical and encyclopedic value. As such, the intro does NOT represent the rest of the article. While I agree that extensive mention of the names of non-believing scholars names is not called for in the intro, a summary of their views IS needed - their names can come later in the main body--JimWae 20:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• I would think that readers, whether they be believers or not, would want to know from the intro whether they are about to encounter ONLY religious views or not. I would also think that believing scholars would be interested in hearing what non-believing scholars had to say about Jesus--JimWae 20:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Currently, the intro makes absolutely NO mention of any sources for information on Jesus - something the 1st para of 1st sub-section clearly does. Something very much like that paragraph - perhpas without all the scholars names - needs to be included in the intro --JimWae 21:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I know you have a very stong POV and are aggressive in making sure everyone is able to hear it, but your edit of introducing the minority scholars opinion that Christ never existed first in the 4th paragraph of the Intro just seems like poor writing. I continue to work with trying to rewrite it so that the minority opinion is introduced first, but I have not been successful. Can you think of another way to write the paragraph so that it flows better; if not, let's just leave it the way it reads now. Storm Rider 19:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding Content

Since the dispute about the historical accuracy of Jesus himself is still under dispute i believe that a reference should be made to the recent trial in Italy regarding whether the Roman Catholic Church may be breaking the law by teaching that he existed some 2,000 years ago.

Reference: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/04/italy.jesus.reut/

Ghais 17:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is more than just "a minority of scholars" who have doubts about there having been an historical "jesus" - that's why the article is POV. Could those wishing to preserve the article please offer up examples of verifiable evidence of an historical "jesus"? Robsteadman 17:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the view that Jesus never existed certainly is a minority view, but, that this article can certainly mention that view (briefly) and provide links to two articles which explore that theory in greater detail...Historicity of Jesus and Jesus-Myth. KHM03 17:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

tyranny of the prevailing opinion is by all means the worst. Ghais 17:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

But is the historical "jesus" verifiable? Isn't that the basis of Wiki? It is verifiable that certain scholars have said things but is the historical "jesus" verifiable? Robsteadman 17:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

My view is that Wikipedia isn't here to verify anything, but simply to present information as accurately as possible. Whether Jesus' existence can be verified isn't the key issue here; the truth is that most of the world (including academia) believes that he did exist, although the divine nature attributed to him by Christianity is certainly (and fairly) disputed, as are many events in his life (Virgin birth, Resurrection, etc.). With those two other articles dedicated to the (albeit minority) opinion that Jesus never existed, it seems to me that this article ought to focus upon the most prominent view, which is, of course, that Jesus was a real historical individual. KHM03 17:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I can by no mean see any sense in restricting information to the prevailing opinion of the majority, given the fact that many have argued against the historical existence of Jesus it is only logical to refer to such opinions and research, being exactly what they are. Ghais 17:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - there are many articles about all sorts of aspects of "jesus" - this, purporting to be aboue the man hinmself, needs to present the facts that are verifiable. Wikipedia, I was told only a couple of days ago, is about verifiability. Much of the content that is in the "jesus" article is about "christianity" and what "chrsitians" believe - it is not about a verifiable "jesus". I think this article presnts a biased POV and much of the content is wrongly placed here. Robsteadman 17:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, but you understand of course that your view isn't as prominent in the world as the view that Jesus did exist? KHM03 17:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A prominent view doesn't necessitate correctness. Ghais 17:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think an encyclopedia is about verifiable facts NOT weight of opinion. This artcil is not really doing what the title suggests. It is POV and is being protected wrongly. Feel free to provide contemporary historical proof of his existence by the way. Robsteadman 17:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There is (I note) also a "historicity" section in the article. You don't feel that's fair? KHM03 17:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

But that needss to be in the intro - as there is no contemporary evidence and an historical "jesus" cannot be verified as ever having existed this should be stated in the ntro of the article - not hidden away. That is the point, the POV of the article is that he existed - despite the facts! personally I think the entire article needs re-writing but I'm sure that would never be allowed by the handful who are protecting this biased piece of writing. Robsteadman 17:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you concede that most people in the world, whether or not they affirm him as Lord and God, believe Jesus to have existed? KHM03 17:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop using the majority as an argument. Ghais 18:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don;t know that as a fact - have you statistics? I agree most "chrsitians" believe he was real rather than just anm allegory but an encyclopedia isn;t about popularity oif opinion but verifiable fact - where is the verifiable fact that he was real? Without it the doubt must be placed prominently in the intro - otherwise it makes the article POV and makes a mockery of Wiki and its rules. Robsteadman 18:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The most prominent view is important. Now, I don't know stats. My guess is that if we added up the world's Christians and Muslims, all of whom (at least officially) affirm the existence of Jesus, that's a pretty big number. Aside from that, the view that Jesus never existed is a minority view in academia. That doesn't make it correct or incorrect, but it's just the way it is. Does the historicity section seem satisfactory to you...with proper links, of course, to the appropriate articles (such as Historicity of Jesus and Jesus-Myth)? KHM03 18:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes but they shouldn;t be hidden away - they need to be mentioned in the intro - and prominently. As for majority views being important - that's fine as long as it's only stated that it is verifiable that x number have this opinion - the verifiability or not of the existence of "jesus" is fundamental to the article. This article is meant to be about "jesus" - it needs to be clear that there is no contemporary histiorical evidence for his existence Robsteadman 18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

How many scholars actually doubt his existence? That might be a good number to begin with...a pretty small number, relatively speaking, I'd bet. Does the historicity section mention your concerns? KHM03 18:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What might be good to begin with is a statement as previosuly sugegsted that there is nothing to verify his existence at all and that despite this.... etc.Robsteadman 18:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

So your problem is with the intro? KHM03 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes and the genrral balance of the article. I am not saying the article shoud not exist but the POV should be removed and verifiable fact needs to be made more prominent over the stating of beliefs as facts. Robsteadman 18:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, we ought to let academia worry about their verification methods; we need to report simply what the prevailing opinions are, as well as less prominent views (such as the one you're suggesting). KHM03 18:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No, in an article about STalin we'd provide the basic details that can be proven, in an article about daffodils we'd provide the basic facts that are verifiable - why should this change when it gets to "jesus"? Opinions have no place in the intro - yes further down, clearly labelles opinions, but not in the intro. Robsteadman 18:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Then, if you're not looking to compromise/find consensus, my guess is that the article stays protected for a while. If you can find some room for consensus, please let me (or others) know. Thanks...KHM03 18:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

So your definition of CONCENSUS is giving way to the POV protectors? Thwe article MUST have the logo put on that the neutrality of the artcile is questioned. Robsteadman 18:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No, my definition of consensus is to abide by what the majority of editors decides. It looks to me as if your proposal has lost. I'm not going to waste time here, obviously, if you can only see one solution. I hope the article gets unprotected at some point (soon), but, again, I don't think you'll be happy with how your proposal turns out until you can find a compromise. Thanks & good luck...KHM03 18:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There is only one solution which sticks with the principles of WIki - a verifiable article with no POV. The current article is POV. Robsteadman 19:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman, there is a significant section already devoted to the historicity of Jesus as well as links to MULTIPLE paragraphs that go to great depths concerning that subject. THIS article, however, is not about the historicity of Jesus and thus should not be the premier or primary focus of the article. This is not POV in any way, as alternative views are covered well and links are provided to articles which cover this aspect in great detail. We can all infer that you don't believe Jesus existed and want everyone to know he didn't, but this article is meant to provide information on Jesus in a broader context, not simply concerning the debate over his supposed existence. That separate issue belongs in a separate article, as it currently is.

Please review the definition of NPOV:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. Aiden 00:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect

This page shoudl be unprotected - this is blatant censorship. The article is POV and needs to be re-qwritten. IU am amazed it is considered a "Good Article" - it is very poor in verifiability and fact. Robsteadman 17:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why the article was protected. Is it because of the "Jesus and Anti-semtitism" section"? KHM03 17:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Even that shouldn;t have resulted in Protecting it - but rewriting. Robsteadman 17:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree...but is that the reason? KHM03 17:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is just a group of editors protecting THEIR article which puts forward THEIR version of the subject and they won;t allow anything as basic as fact and verifiability to get in the way of THEIR propaganda. Robsteadman 17:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, my question is (and I haven't read the proposed section): Is there evidence that Jesus was anti-semitic? Maybe I've missed part of the conversation here, but I'm just honestly confused as to the issue at hand. KHM03 17:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been following the debate either, KHM03, although I do have this page on my watchlist, as a possible target for vandalism. However, I can tell all you that it was protected by an admin who does not have a history of involvement in the article (other than rolling back vandalism), so I fail to see how this is "blatant censorship" or "just a group of editors protecting THEIR article". The summary in the protection log is: protecting to stop brewing edit war about anti-semetic section. discuss on talk. any admin, feel free to unprotect if they sort things out. I'm happy (as would be any admin) to unprotect if people can convince me that things have been sorted out, but I haven't got time to look into it myself. AnnH ^(talk) 17:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That all makes sense. Was evidence produced that Jesus was an anti-semite? Hard to figure, considering he was Jewish (is that disputed?). I may have missed a bit, and haven't looked at the history in depth, but perhaps the folks who support the disputed passage (Robsteadman?) can make their case here; it would be nice to get this article "unprotected" as quickly as possible. Thanks...KHM03 17:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the anti-semitism section had nothing to do with it. It was the revert warring over Robsteadman's contributions. Paul B 17:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No I am having a separate battle. I am not sure he could be anti-semitic because my main point is there is no evidence of an historical "jesus" at all>! Robsteadman 17:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

So what's the dispute about the anti-semitism? Who is making the claim that Jesus is anti-semitic (I didn't mean to imply that it was definitely you, Robsteadman...that was just a guess)? KHM03 17:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the anti-semitism section (thanks, Paul Barlow), it seems to me to have no place here. The article is about Jesus, not his followers. If that was the reason for the protection, can we agree on this and get the article unprotected? KHM03 18:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

So you agree the article is about "jesus"? Not "christianity"? Robsteadman 18:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect and lets get this to be NPOV rather than the POV which it currently is. Robsteadman 18:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course I think the article is about Jesus...why wouldn't I? Now, there's a connection, of course, but it seems to me that criticisms of Christianity belong on the Criticisms of Christianity article, not here. You disagree? KHM03 18:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree - but the article needs to be a balanced NPOV article about "jesus" which means that the intro MUST state the non-existnce of any contemporary historical proof that he ever was a person. Robsteadman 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an administrator, so I can't unprotect anything. But my guess is that if we placed the "non-existence" theory in the intro, it would be removed because of this, this, and possibly this. In short, with this minority view, I don't think you'll get too far. KHM03 18:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I've asked to be in the intro - merely a statement that there is no contemporary historical document to confirm that "jesus" existed - a clear statement of verifiable fact. It is not about views or opinions but about verifiability. Robsteadman 18:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This article is about Jesus, not the debate over his existence. There are many figures that we provide information on in Wikipedia that may or may not have actually existed. Virtually any historical figure (Socrates, for example) can be argued to be a myth. We already have a large section devoted to the historicity of Jesus in this article as well as several other articles such as Historicity of Jesus, Historical Jesus, Jesus-myth, etc. that debate this. The changes you're proposing belong in these other articles. Aiden 18:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The intro is currently POV because it is presenting a biased opinion - it must make it clear that there is no evidence. Robsteadman 18:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, Robsteadman...review those links to see why your proposal will likely fail. Hope you can find a compromise. KHM03 18:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have lookied at those links. They don;t stop the current article from being POV. Robsteadman 19:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And I'm afraid that if a compromise isn't found, the article is likely to remain protected. Though I must stress again that it was protected by an uninvolved admin, and was protected because of an edit war, not from a desire to keep any information in or out. That's why admins don't protect pages they're involved in, except in cases of vandalism. The temptation to protect the version they favoured might be a little too overpowering! AnnH ^(talk) 19:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A great shame that the compromise that SOPHIA and I brokered yesterday evening wasn't allowed to remain - it made the intro NPOV. Robsteadman 19:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The statement is in the background section already, why must it be in the Introduction just a couple of paragraphs up? And again, do you really have to keep "quoting" "Jesus" and "Christian" every time? We get the point, we see your POV. It only reveals your aggressiveness which will not help your stance, unless you start putting quotes around "athiest" also. --Oscillate 19:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Osciallate - to remove the POV of the intro the veriufiability (or lack of) needs to be in the intro. As for the inverted commas - I use them because I personally don;t believe he existed at all - but I'm not trying to impose that view just get a balanced verifiable intro. Robsteadman 19:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What was the compromise offered by Robsteadman and SOPHIA? KHM03 19:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To add this sentence (the one italicised): "After his death numerous followers interpreted and spread his teachings. Due to the lack of extant contemporary documents a minority of scholars question the Historicity of Jesus. Paul B 19:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=36984293&oldid=36983356 - not sure that will work - it was at 2004 last night on thebhistory.... I still think the list of scholars in that version is cumbersome but there was a better balance to the article. Robsteadman 19:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Whihc seems a more thanb reaosnable NPOV comment to have in the intro..... but those who wish to censor the article don;t want anything that questions their hero even if it flies in the face of verifiable fact. Robsteadman 19:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Could we please stop the attacks and this aggressively accusatory tone? If you're wanting to follow wiki guidelines so much, there is something called "assume good faith" --Oscillate 20:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

So what do you consider qwrong with the version SOPHIA and I brokered? How can it's removal and then PROTECTION be justified? Robsteadman 20:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And I will assume good faith when there seems to be good faith - with this article that has not been apparent. Robsteadman 20:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's just that one sentence at the bottom of the intro, that's fine, or where it is now in the background section is fine with me. But no logical jumps from the lack of contemporary documents to "factual non-existance" that you've been pushing here - that's your own POV and doesn't belong in the article. If you want to point to other articles like Historicity of Jesus, no problem. The article was not protected to keep that statement out, it was protected because of the constant reverting until a consensus could be made on what would stand. --Oscillate 20:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have at no point asked for factual non-existence to be included - please read what I have put. I have asked that, to remove the current POV intro, it needs to make it clear, as our compromise did yesterday, that there are no extant contemporary documents that show "jesus" was historical and that some scholars doubt his existence. Please look at the suggestion yesterday and tell me what is wrong with it? Robsteadman 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• A way to make the same point - that other find less objectionable - is to say "most agree he existed"--JimWae 21:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I thought this might prove useful for someone in this debate. Taken from Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View
    • "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth."
    • "In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all."

So the question should be asked- how sizable is the minority that doubts Jesus' existance? If it is very small (as I suspect it is) NPOV policy states it should not be in this article, but in another (such as The Historicity of Jesus, or whatever its called)

Deskana (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Desjana - you're missing the point. I, and others, ahve not asked for doubt to be included, just that there are no extant contemporary documents that prove his existence. There is a subtle but huge difference. I'm not quibbling that one POV irs better than another I'm asking that a verifgiable fact is included because I feel it is fundamental to the article. Do you really think the 2004 version of yesterady evening was bad? It seemed liek a very fair compronmise and dealt only in verifiable facts. The current edit is POV and makes out that his existence is verifiable and documented. Robsteadman 21:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Either way, I don't see why it matters to you so much you're willing to spend such time arguing over it. Deskana (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated several times now, lack of extant contemporaneous evidence on a historical figure IS NOT HISTORICAL PROOF THAT THEY DID NOT EXIST! Once again, this is something we run into ALL THE TIME in studying the ancient world. Now, this means that there are scholars who question the historicity of Jesus, and as with all of these historical figures for whom our main source of evidence is later documents, we try to keep in mind that there is the possibility that these individuals not not exist at all or at the very least we do not have an accurate portrayal of them, and as such attempt to draw what conclusions we can in analysis. I am involved in such research right now with Caligula. But because this scholarship exists, it does not mean that there is a massive debate within our field as to the historical existence of Christ, or that there is evidence he never existed, or that a lack of contemporary documents implies a lack of existence. Mr. Steadman, to be perfectly blunt, you DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. And once again, I would ask you to knock off this infantile behaviour. pookster11 22:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The first point I would like to make is that it is totally unacceptable to protect the page to stop an edit war. That is why we have user blocks. If you look at the history the protection seems to have been triggered by pookster11's insistence that an anti-semitism section be added and user Aiden disagreeing. pookster11 writing in block capitals is considered shouting on the web and is rude and unnecessary. Attempts to diminish someone's heart felt opinion at "infantile" will not help the debate and will only cause people to go on the defensive.

The problem I think boils down to this (please correct me if I misrepresent you Rob). There are two generally accepted definitions of proof. In the criminal courts it is "beyond all reasonable doubt" but in the civil courts there is the lower requirement of "on the balance of probability" for something to be proved "true". I suspect Rob is like me a "criminal court" facts person and by this criteria the only admissable evidence (that is obviously not from a self interest group such as the Christians) is very thin on the ground. We have to accept however Rob, that most of the world is "civil court" and will take into account the Christian writings, the tremendous growth of Christianity at that time and the passion of it's devotees all of which would be considered circumstantial in the criminal court. As with certain high profile cases I can think of, just because the criminal courts were unable to obtain a conviction the civil courts found someone guilty.

My only interest in this is to point readers to further topics for exploration if they wish. I originally put the sentence in the first section to see if it would last but it melted like the proverbial snowball in hell so I moved it to the Background section as this is also prominent and it seemed to fit well. The Historicity section needs a link too but I didn't want to change too much at once and it needs thought to fit into the section as it is currently written.

People have the right to make up their own mind as to what level of proof they need of something. I grew up in my church and church run school never being aware of the background of Christianity. Most people don't question the Historicity of Jesus as it's a fact that is fed to you with your mother's milk. It's like the nativity plays the kids do each year with the angels, the shepherds and the wise men. I reckon if there's one person in the room that knows that that story doesn't exist in the bible "as is"but is a composite of the gospels then it's a pretty well read audience. Most people don't care anyway - it's tradition.

KHM03 is right I think when he says the majority veiw needs to be prominent. As I pointed out to someone else - there are kids out there using this for homework and they are going to get low marks if they come up with something their teacher isn't expecting. As long as the information and the links are clearly marked in the correct sections and not tucked away then I do think it's fair that the overview assumes the majority view. The Background section is directly below this so a mention and link there of the minority controversy seems a fair balance to me.

Come over to the Historicity of Jesus and the Historical Jesus pages Rob - these do need looking over as I think some balance up is required to fairly present the debate.

I'm learning in Wiki that although I thought I was pretty good at seeing the otherside of the argument I have a very strong POV that colours how I view things. This is useful to know as I'm begining to realise why I have clashed in the past with other editors. I haven't changed my POV but hopefully I'm getting better at properly representing my arguments in a truly neutral way. We shall see! SOPHIA 23:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well put, SOPHIA. KHM03 00:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I may well pop over. B ut I still maintain tat this article, a BIOGRAPHICAL article needs to state its verifiablity prominently. What scholars have interpreted is interesting but doesn;t hold up to scrutiny. I really think the statement SOPHIA and I sorted two evening's ago was valid and should be reinstated. Robsteadman 13:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, whilst I agree with much of what you say there wasn't a tremendous growth in "christianity" until after things started to be written about "jesus" some 2 generations later. (At that time average life expectancy was 28 - the earliest gospels were written mid 60s.... Jospehus in 94..... A biographical article should be "Criminal" court sound whilst the "beleif" article should contain the guesswork, interpretations and mythical elments. I think it's wrong that the Histoicity is separated off rrather than the "faith" POV. Robsteadman 13:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask yourself what most people are looking for when they go to this article, or what they expect to see. Are they looking to see debates from a few people about whether he existed, or looking to see what beliefs are commonly held about him by millions of people? In that context, does it make more sense to have a sub-article devoted to the historicity or to have the main article with the body of the most popular information relegated to a sub-article? As far as I'm concerned, if you want to have the statement that there have not been found any documents mentioning him from his lifetime, no problem. I don't even have a problem with that being at the bottom of the intro instead of the background section. But it's certainly not proof of non-existance at all. --Oscillate 16:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If people look up a biography of anyone they expect to see the true verifiable facts first and then the more questionable stuff later and anything else after that. That is the sensible order. It is the encyclopedic ortder. Noone has asked for the inclusion of a statement that he didn;t exist and SOPHIA and I had a sentence in the intro saying exactly what you suggest - but those out to protect and keep the POV removed it then protected. Robsteadman 17:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Could we please drop the conspiracy stuff? The article was protected because there was a lot of reverting going on and no consensus on the horizon, particularly concerning the anti-semitism change. The statement you want added is in the Background section still, even now in it's supposed "POV protected" state.

Look at some other encylopedia articles on Jesus: Encarta, Columbia, Britannica. They all follow basically the same outline of this article. Some do mention something in the introductions about the "scantiness of additional source material", and they all start off with something about him being a historical person, talking about what is believed about him with historicity discussions later or in different articles. Encarta even says in the intro: Today, scholars generally agree that Jesus was a historical figure whose existence is authenticated both by Christian writers and by several Roman and Jewish historians.

So other encyclopedias do list "true verifiable facts first", i.e. what is believed about Jesus by different peoples. --Oscillate 17:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case some of those encyclopdias are wrong - Encarta in particular. Yes the comment is in the body of the article - it deserves a place in the intro. The intro contains little of verifiable fact about the biography of the historical person. That is what this article is meant to be about.Robsteadman 18:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman, you keep saying or implying that this page was protected by people who wanted to keep their POV in it. I have already said that it was protected by an uninvolved admin. Apart from reversion of vandalism, GregAsche has zero involvement with this article, at least for the last few thousand edits. (I haven't checked the history all the way back to the beginning.) Do you have evidence to the contrary? It's perfectly standard procedure for an admin to protect a page in the case of an edit war. That's why the template currently at the top of the article page exists. Greg, or I, or any other admin will be very happy to unprotect it as soon as the editors manage to convince us that they've reached some kind of agreement. AnnH ^(talk) 18:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Di he spontaneously protect or was he asked to? Why have reasonable edits been regularly removed rather than discussed first? All I want is verifiability and an NPOV article including the intro. That is not currently the case. Robsteadman

I don't know, as I wasn't involved. I only found out about the protection afterwards. I can tell you, though, that when editors ask an admin to lock a page during an edit war, they always run the risk that the page will be locked just two seconds after their "opponent" has reverted again. That's a chance they have to take, and many people mightn't want to take such a chance. That's why, in my experience, the people who want to ask for page protection are generally the more detached editors, who object more to the ediit war than to either version. AnnH ^(talk) 18:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, GregAsche declares himself "proud to be an Atheist" on his user page. --Oscillate 20:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in your views of my suggestion below. I think it makes it a fairer, balanced NPOV intro which is verifiable. Robsteadman 18:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's time for me to comment here. First off, no one asked me to protect the page. I noticed an edit war was starting about this section, and two users were effectively using edit comments to discuss the changes. I have no vested interest in this article; the only edits I've ever made to it are to revert vandalism. As for Oscillate's comment about my atheism, I hope you can realize that my action on Wikipedia aren't driven by my religious beliefs. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I was pointing that out because Robsteadman was implying you protected it to keep the 'POV pro-Christian bias' and it amounted to censorship. --Oscillate 17:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't think of it that way. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)