Talk:Jesus/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Compromise Part III: The Return of the Intro

Using all suggestions and while maintaing a NPOV, I feel the following will please most:

Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (circa 4 BC/BCE – 30 AD/CE), is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah".

Christian viewpoints on Jesus (known as Christology) are both diverse and complex. Most Christians, affirming the Nicene Creed, believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins, and acceptance of Jesus as Savior saves one from sin (John 3:16). Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the "right hand" of God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians do not recognize the Nicene Creed as correctly interpreting scripture.

In Islam, Jesus (called Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, and also the Messiah. Muslims however do not share the Christian belief in the crucifixion or divinity of Jesus. The Qur'an states that Jesus is alive in heaven and will return to the earth as Messiah in the company of the Mahdi once it has become full of sin and injustice. Jesus is also considered a manifestation of God in the Bahá'í Faith.

The main sources regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, which are believed to have been written in the latter half of the first century. While most scholars agree there are references to Jesus and Christians by first and second century writers, a minority of scholars, citing lack of extant contemporary documents, question the historicity of Jesus.

Please discuss. —Aiden 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've never talked here before I don't think, but that seems good to me, and pretty accurate. Homestarmy 13:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me, this is getting old....Gator (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If we do all this talking and then "rob" goes immediately and puts in text that was never discussed here, and not even what he repeatedly copied, what's the point? --Oscillate 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well if we can agree on this introduction as consensus we can certainly out-revert Rob. Homestarmy 16:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks fair and balanced to me. SOPHIA 17:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

5 for, 0 against, where's Rob? :/ Homestarmy 18:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

He already changed the intro to his own version, which was even different from what he had posted in here. --Oscillate 18:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the current intro is getting some way towards a good verifiable NPOV intro. Robsteadman 18:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well then what are your thoughts on this intro we've proposed here? Homestarmy 18:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not taht different than the one that's up - and I'd like it to show CE not AD (which is POV). Robsteadman 18:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why did we even bother to have a discussion? --Oscillate 18:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

opk its a bit wordy - - Nicene Crfeed stuff, etc. could what til the article. Robsteadman 18:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well there is already a policy about A.D. vs. CE, whichever one was in the article first should take precedence unless it's clearly not appropriate or something like that, or both could be used, it is in that box in the middle. Trust me, i've been all over that particular debate over December 25th, it took awhile but we finally got agreement :/. But if we've got consensus that this is appropriate then, it seems slightly more discriptive, and appears to better separate people's opinion's distinctly and clearly, I think we should put it in. Homestarmy 18:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please. Enough.Gator (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob is unilaterally messing with the intro and is ignoring consensus regarding a number of issues (AD v CE for example). Please be bold and put this intro in.Gator (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ad is POV. CE is NPOV. If that is Wiki's policy it needs to change. AD is POV and, let's be honest, offensive to many. I am not unilaterally messing - I am trying to make sure it is a balanced article with a balanced intro - some have eben trying to unbalance it further. Robsteadman 18:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I started re-editing before I was even aware of this part of the TALK page - has this not got too big again? I honestly missed that there was further compromise!! Robsteadman 19:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Wikipedia is not a PC soapbox, see "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" anti-semitism or Blackface. Im afraid we cannot comprimise because people choose to take positions to be offended just because they hate the idea, there has to be reason, and a very good one. it makes no sense at all in this case anyway, people have used AD for thousands of years without being Christian or being offended, if you are choosing to be offended, it is just that, your choice, not common sense that says all non-Christians should be offended. If you'd like to prove otherwise, you'd have to show some non-original reaserch which is totally reasonable on the subject. At any rate, the vast majority here agree with this intro, and also appear opposed to changing from AD/BC to BCE/CE, im afraid time is simply up for this debate, it was compleated in the Wiki policy change concerning AD/BC and BCE/CE. Homestarmy 19:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Rob's version which minimalizes extensively the majority view in flagrant violation of WP:NPOV's clause relating to weight. In its stead I've included a modified version of the above--which there was a consensus concerning--and I feel any reasonable person would regard this as an excellent working and NPOV compromise. —Aiden 20:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks top rate to me, now let's work on getting this thing back to a featured article. Do we need inline citations again, and what happened to them before if they even existed? Homestarmy 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Historical Jesus and the Discussion of the Trial

Hello

1. Is this article supposed to be an article about the historical Jesus? I am asking since I do not see any results included which have been achieved by modern scholars such as say E.P Sanders. If that article is mostly thought to be a religious article then I propose to write one about the historical person Jesus of Nazareth, taking into account those results..
2. In any case I recommend to extend the passage about the Arrest, trial and execution. For example it is not even mentioned that the Gospels do contradict themselves in their narrative. (John vs Snynoptics), nor that the events of the trial carried out by the Sanhedrin seem to contradict the information of the Talmud, about how such processes had to be carried out.

Oub 17:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC):

If you'd actually read the comments above, you'd see this is exactly what is being discussed. And there is already a Historical Jesus article. Aiden 18:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I tried that..., anyhow thanks for the information (funny to note that the German Wikipedia articles about that subject are the other way around. There is a long article about the historical Jesus and a short one about Jesus from the "Christian" point of view. In any case I thought about the question of the trial. The contradictions between the 4 gospels are too numerous to be ignored. So I will submit to the talk page a more elaborated description taking into account John vs Synoptics etc. Oub 11:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC):

User Oub, there actually used to be just such a paragraph in the beginning of the article, which someone deleted. Like you (and many others) I believe that a brief summary of their findings is necessary (not least of all for NPOV reasons) for this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If critical arguments about supposed contradictions are in the article, then popular apologetic rebuttals would have to be inserted as well. This is about Jesus, not why many people think Christianity and the Bible is wrong. Homestarmy 16:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Lemma

Jesus is just a graecicized version of a common Hebrew name, Joshua. There have been many people of this name in history and in the Bible. This is like filing Gaius Julius Caesar under Julius. It would be more appropriate and unambiguous to redir Jesus to Jesus (disambiguation) and rename this article Jeshua ha-Nozri or Jesus of Nazareth (Jesus [the] Christ ist only the name given to him by one religious tradition, thus POV.) And it should definitely be merged with Historical Jesus. It's absurd to try to flatten out conflicting views on a matter by allowing more than one article on the self-same subject. Wikipedia should try to present different POVs (PsOV?) in a synoptic way. --84.188.143.210 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You're free to suggest a vote for both. --Oscillate 23:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, but how many people in the entire world would think to look up an article by the name Jeshua ha-Nozri? Conversely, how many people in the english speaking world, the world that reads this site, who might be curious about Jesus would just look up Jesus. Don't you think 99.99% of the people know exactly who is being identified by the term Jesus? Take it to a vote may be one solution to your delimma and the other just might be to accept reality. You are choking on a gnat; let it go. Storm Rider 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy encourages using common names (which is why if you search for Sting you get the singer not the professional wrestler, etc.) —Aiden 01:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What is this page about?

Is it about "jesus" or is it about what various people believe about "jesus" and what he may or may not have done?

It sounds to me like the German is a lot closer to an appropriate article putting the fact before the unverifiable. Maybe this article should JUST be the intro (eithe mine of SOPHIA's) with links to all other options? Robsteadman 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Jesus. It addresses both the historical and the religious perspective. Given that most of the information is found in books of scripture, the article will focus on those sources and will necessarily have a "religious" focus. The historical side of the article with true historical perspective is welcome and needed. Storm Rider 21:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Surelyy the historical side is more than wlercome but essential? Robsteadman 07:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that already at Historical Jesus ?Homestarmy 22:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So are we going to go with SOPHIA's intro - balanced, NPOV, verifiable.... Robsteadman 07:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

Is there anyway this article can be permanently semi-protected? It is a magnet for anonymous vandalism that takes way too much time to constantly revert and does not seem like it will never end. At least when it was sprotected, it did stop. --Oscillate 15:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.Gator (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Also agreed. SOPHIA 17:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Such protectionism will only discourage potential new contributors who are testing the waters before getting an account. The vandalism is at a manageable level, and I'm sure plenty of people have Jesus on their watchlist. --Nelson Ricardo 17:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose but swift blocking of vandals needed. Robsteadman 17:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's unfortunately but necessary. —Aiden 20:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Much better

Much better, starting to reduce the POV leanings, a great improvement. Robsteadman 17:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No it is not "much better." You've made huge changes NOT discussed and completely ignored the consensus we came to through extensive discussion. I've implemented the version we agreed on, not your version which minimalizes the majority view. Please see WP:NPOV as it is evident you are not familiar with said Wikipedia policy. —Aiden 20:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

AD CE....man....

Despite hundreds of hours of discussion re; a compromise measure for CE/AD, someone has reverted to CE. Can somene please just revert these abck to what was agreed upon. We've dicussed this issue to deatha dn that was the compromise, so we shouldn't alow someoen to unilaterally jack with it like this. Unbelievable...Gator (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

AD is POV. CE is NPOV. Wiki is wrong if its policy is to continue to use AD. It is outdated and offensive. Robsteadman 18:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We're not going to argue this ALL OVER AGAIN. It has been discussed and a compromsie (completely within policy) was reached, so turn it back or look at the past discussions regarding this and then turn it back. Either way,, but we're not going to go through this again.Gator (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the discussion needs to be reopened. AD is POV and offensive. CE is NPOV and neutral. Robsteadman 19:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm against it. We've beat this horse to death. Try and convince others to opne it again. Until a new consensus is reached however, you need to change it back to what was agreed upon, Rob.Gator (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Quit you're yelling.Gator (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope - not yelling. And I'm not changing anything back to an offensive and POV position. Robsteadman 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Two exclamation points says you're yelling. If you ignore consensus like this and refuse to turn it back, it will say a great deal about your respect for consensus and will, likely, injure your ability to convicne many people of the viability of your edits in the future. Turn it back.Gator (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you;re so pro AD you do the reverts. AD is POV it is unencyclopedic andf un academic. It is offensive. CE is neutral and should be adopted by Wiki throughout ALL articles. Wiki should not be about putting "chrstianity" above all else - that is what AD suggests. Robsteadman 19:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK let's debate it.... there's a similar debate going on on the HISTORICITY page right now. Robsteadman 19:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not POV, people have used AD for about 2000 years, and not everyone was a Christian, apparently they saw no PoV problems with it or any objections at all until PC came around. If you don't agree with Wikipedia policy, you can't just ignore it because you think it's outdated and expect people not to protest. We're not out to get you, it's just simple facts, the policy states that it should be AD if it started AD, and CE if it started CE, unless its in radical circumstances, all the debate over POV/NPOV was finished when that policy was implemented pretty much. Im afraid if you can't revert it, we will have to, or WE will be the ones who are violating policy. Furthermore, I must ask, did you decide that AD offended you before you saw the debates over it, or after you saw people's anti-AD opinions? Furthermore, i've been blocked twice from posting because your arguing so fast, let a guy get in a word edge-wise, huh? :/ Homestarmy 19:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware that there had been debates on here about it - I find it offensive because it is POV. It suggests "christianity" is more important than everything else. It is part of keeping everyone in their place. Robsteadman 19:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

But, now that you do know you have no excuse for not reverting THEN discussing ((not the other way around). There was a compromise on this and you're just ignoring it becuase you don;t agree with it. Rob, change it back. This is the wrong way to go about this and you know it.Gator (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What if you simply tried not to find it offensive, people have not felt strongly about this issue for hundreds of years before recent times, what is making you be offended so besides pride against Christianty? Homestarmy 19:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sure this has been noted before, but isn't it amusing that Christ was born 8-4 years before he was born? Kaveh 16:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Existing policy on AD/CE

Folks,

I personally agree with the basic assertion that AD/BC is POV. However, neither the Arbitration Committee nor those who have made the present policy have seen it that way. Please see WP:MOS and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2. The AD/CE policy can be set on an article by article basis, but only by consensus. That means in order to change an article from one to another, everyone here has to agree. Else, someone will have to lobby to get policy changed. In the past, consensus on various articles has leaned toward use of AD/BC on Christianity-related articles, but CE/BCE on those related to other religions.

Something I did not know when I watched this play out during Jguk's arbcom case is that CE/BCE are relatively unknown in many former British empire countries. Many found this alone to be a good reason for retaining AD/CE. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And, if one looks at the discussion on this page, a consensus found that the AD/CE BC/BCE was to be used. So please respect the consensus (I disagree with it too by the way but you don't see me ignoring it) and change it back.Gator (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me, i'll change it to AD/CE BC/BCE, all it can do is help people understand the date more without making things all PC. Homestarmy 20:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Jdb & allies, i

didn't participate in the decision,

find AD/BC offensive even when paired up with CE/BCE, and

find it especially offensive when AD/BC advocates are so arrogant as to suggest the dark ages of 150 years ago offer any evidence about what is "just fine, thank you", as above.

But offensiveness is really overrated, especially as in this issue, where

• the offense is mostly incidental to medievalists' insecurity at losing something that happens to give them a slight respite against the present and future, rather than being an aggressive attempt to inflict offense, and
• modernism has not yet won in the "trenches" of the issue in question, namely conventional usage.

So i urge letting this one slide. The energy would be much better spent on countering their attempts to present their respective scriptural corpus of choice as a source carrying any reliable information about even the history of belief, except via versions of "the higher criticism" that recognize on one hand that people writing things that will enhance their power are lying until proven otherwise, and on the other, that there's more in a text than what its author wants you to see. CE/BCE is exemplary, but not a hill that's worth your efforts.
--Jerzy•t 20:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I, kind of, agree. Honor the consensus and focus on other issues.
Gator (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Jerzy, if the writers of the Bible wanted to make themselves look good, why did they record themselves running away like maniacs when their Lord and Savior was being arrested? That doesn't sound to me like something anyone wants anyone to know about.
Homestarmy 22:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In my zeal to moderate the position of presumed modernists here, i ventured to respond to enhance my own modernist street cred by remarking on the abusive contrib at the end of the previous section. I am embarrassed to have exhibited so little imagination about what kind of response that would in turn elicit, and regret having created the occasion for discussion to wander still further off-topic and still further into personal attack.
--Jerzy•t 01:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is really rather simple: Offensiveness is a subjective measure. As such, it is dependent upon an individual's personal biases. Because of this, it is not defineable in any way other than by consensus. The only other way to define it -- "if one person finds it offensive, it's wrong" -- is asinine and not worth considering.

You see the problem, here? Yeah, that's right; it was decided by consensus, and you're suggesting that consensus is wrong. But it's the only right way to judge subjectivity. icydesign 03:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Era Solution: A Proposal

Hello, everyone. I am in support of the anno Domini terminology personally, but I have a different proposal that may just satisfy everyone who reads Wikipedia. This proposal would remove the edit wars, as well as all problems of "confusion" and the extreme likeness of BCE to CE. Also, it would stop confusing pages like this one from referring to years like 164 BC/BCE. I got this idea from the customs of the History Channel. Here is the proposal:

Years from 1 forward will be abbreviated with CE (Common Era; can be interpreted as Christian Era).

This ensures that nobody is acknowledging that Jesus Christ is God, and it also leaves Christians with the Christian era option.

Years 1 BC and previous will be abbreviated with BC (Before Christ; can be interpreted as Before Current).

Although this method would acknowledge Jesus (Christ) directly, noting this era as Before the Common Era simply masks the reasoning behind the Gregorian/Julian calendars. Unlike using AD, using BC does not acknowledge Christ as a god, simply as a historical figure, which most scientists agree that he is. It is basically the same as saying the days of the week, such as Wednesday, because it only acknowledges the historical meaning behind the word, not that the historical meaning is a god. It can also be difficult to speak BCE in dialog, and also, it has three letters. When we drop the "E" and use just BC, it has no grammatical similarities to CE, meaning the terms cannot be confused with one another easily. (One of the reasons of support given for the use of AD and BC on the common era page). Finally, using both BC and CE in a sentence also roll off the tongue easily (e.g - It was ongoing from 2 BC to 5 CE).

The best part about this proposal is that it will not be required that we change the current Wikipedia policy. The current Wikipedia years pages use BC, but they use neither CE nor AD for years after 1. Also, like the History Channel does, we can use AD in replacement of CE for exclusively Christian pages, and we can use BCE rather than BC for exclusively non-Christian religious pages. However for religion-neutral pages, meaning all pages other than those associated with religion, will use the proposal above. How does this sound? Darwiner111 04:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

1. Strong support. Speaking as someone from the CE/BCE camp, this seems like a highly logical and well-formulated compromise. I'm actually startled by how much sense this simple plan makes. —David Levy 05:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong support. Since this looks as if it is becoming a voting process, I will add my strong support as the creator of this proposal. Darwiner111 05:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

• At the very least, a consensus could be applied to this article. If the idea proves popular, I suggest that you post it as a formal guideline proposal. —David Levy 05:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have already released this proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Eras. Apparently there were alot of disagreements concerning the fact that BC is POV for some reason, but in the end there was no concensus. I also posted it at Jimmy Wales' talk page, but if there's anywhere else I could present it that I'm unaware of, David, I'd be happy if you'd let me know. Thanks. Darwiner111 05:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style is a good place to solicit feedback, as is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) — the section of the MoS that stands to be revised. You might even want to create a dedicated proposal page within the Wikipedia namespace (such as Wikipedia:Era proposal). If you do, be sure to place the {{proposed}} tag at the top, and also add notifications to as many relevant talk pages as you can think of. —David Levy 06:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) would be a good place to announce the discussion as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose - the retention of 'christ" is still POV. BCE/CE is an international accepted format whch should be used here. Robsteadman 07:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

   • First, BC is not POV as it can be interpreted as Before Current with the proposal, as can CE be interpreted with Christian attributes. Secondly, no, CE/BCE are not internationally accepted as they are completely unknown to some areas of Europe and other commonwealth. AD/BC are completely known worldwide and have been used for 2,000 years. Darwiner111 07:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Untrue - they have only been used for 1500 years and that still doesn't mean it isn't POV and offensive. Robsteadman 10:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

1. • Rob, if I may point out, even if you get the entire article into BCE CE format, we'll all just assume it means "Before Christian Era" and "Christian Era", we might even change everything in parenthesis to reflect that fact from the CE article. Homestarmy 16:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose - BC does not mean "Before Current". Creation of this neologism violates NPOV and NOR. Guettarda 20:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sometimes I just think you people don't take the time to look this proposal over. This proposal is by far better than anything Wikipedia has come up with yet, and it's way better than writing something like "140 BC/BCE" everywhere. Also, this is the second time I'm saying this, I didn't intend BC to stand for "Before Current", but that is an alternate possible meaning that could be applied by non-Christians that for some reason do not want to acknowledge that Exiguus created the Gregorian calendar to be about Jesus! Yes, Jesus. The same goes for CE, which although really means "Common era", could be interpreted by Christians as "Christian era" (as noted here at the very page for Common Era at Wikipedia). Darwiner111 20:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose - It'd confuse readers unless it was made a standard, which we don't have the resources to do. --Kizor 20:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sheesh, you don't think writing "40 BC/BCE" and "20 AD/CE" is confusing?? If I didn't know what the common era was (like most average citizens) and I came to this page, I'd have no idea what that means. At least if it was 40 BC and 40 CE, I'd be able to click on the "CE" link which would explain that CE is a NPOV alternative to AD. Darwiner111 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to fool yourself and imagine taht POV do it - but any ssane person knows it is a NPOV label that needs to be used to stop offence. AD and BC are POV and offensive. Robsteadman 19:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I guess anyone who disagrees is just insane then huh, Rob? Stop the personal attacks or leave.Gator (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems its YOU taking it all very personally. Why can some of you not see that AD is POV and offensive? Robsteadman 19:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

edit conflict) Oh I understand why YOU think its offensive I just don't think that just because you and some otehrs might be offended by it means that it's actually NPOV when used in conjunction wihth CE/BCE. I don't think we should have to bend over backwards wheenver someone (who clearly has ssues with Christianity and religion) gets all upset and offended by such silly things. AD/CE and BC/BCE is a fine compromise and if you are STILL offended by just seeing AD and BC anywhere in the artcile, then I think you're being intolerant. There I said it.Gator (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Because there isn't a good REASON for it besides you seem to be blowing it out of proportion, come on, relax, understand that using AD or BC in common conversation doesn't force you to accept Christianity, and at the very least let us have both date systems, then everyone can understand it. Homestarmy 19:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert, obviously you don't really think AD is POV and offensive, you just have an extreme hatred toward Christianity. CE/BCE are just as POV as AD/BC because the common era system declares that the current "era" is based on the believed birth of Christ, therefore acknowledges the significance of his birth. Both systems can be taken as POV and offensive, but only people like you would care. The difference is that AD/BC came first, and doesn't act as a propagandic euphemism, therefore offends less people than BCE/CE because Christians (2.1 billion of them) aren't offended by it. Do you think atheists go around saying that BCE/CE is really based on the death of King Herod or something?? No, because even though it doesn't mention Jesus, it's still based on Him! Darwiner111 20:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Patrick/Darwiner/whatever other account you use - as has been pointed out to you over and over, BC is POV because it asserts that Jesus is the Messiah, AD is POV because it asserts that Jesus is God. CE and BCE describe that POV as per the NPOV policy. NPOV policy does not allow Wikipedia to assert a POV, merely to describe it. If you actually read all the discussion around this issue, before digging it up again you would realise that what you are saying is false. Guettarda 20:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, Guettarda. Can't you see that there is obviously an anti-Christian sentiment in all of this? If you say that Wikipedia can only "describe" AD/BC, then wouldn't you also find it logical to have Wikipedia rename all the days of the week from Monday to Firstday; Tuesday to Secondday; Wednesday to Thirdday, etc?? Saying "Wednesday" is asserting the POV of believing that this day belongs to the God Woden (i.e. Woden's Day). I've never had a reasonable excuse by anti-Christians like yourself as to why the days of the week are left alone in all of this. They are just as POV (which isn't very POV anyway) as AD/BC but nobody cares. Why? Because some people find it amusing to single out Christianity when it comes to these pathetic euphemism labelings. Leave AD/BC alone. Darwiner111 20:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You really need to read the policy against personal attacks. What right do you have to say "anti-Christians like yourself"? Who do you feel you are to insult me like that? What right do you have to libel me like that? At the very least you could try to avoid such brazen lies. Guettarda 09:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't asserting anything, if AD/BC was asserting something, then every time someone writes down AD or BC, they would have to have the overwhelming feeling that they should become a Christian. Such a feeling would have to be self-generated, otherwise the world would probably be far more influenced to be Christian. Homestarmy 20:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am a little caught off guard by this entire conversation. Have any of you taken the time to read the archives? These waters have been thoroughly chummed; quit arguing about it. There are too many more important things about the article than to keep rehashing this tired subject. The vast majority of world understands the label BC/AD. However, in the PC world of academaia, it is the mode du jour to use BCE/CE. Unfortunately, it has not achieved universal usage and seems to be restricted to those residents of the ivory towers of the world, but I suspect over the next 50 years it will become the common usage. Personally, it is six of one and half a dozen of another. It does make sense to me in articles that are based upon Christian subjects that BC/AD seem very appropriate. To use BCE/CE seems to be an affront too many individuals with Christian beliefs. It is the more common label so let it go and move on. Storm Rider 22:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Even in the Ivory Tower of Academia, CE and BCE are rarely used. Officially, in historical article, journals, papers, research topics, and books, the choice of AD/BC or CE/BCE is entirely up to the individual and no preference is given either way. It is aknowledged that they both denote the same thing, and that the usage of AD/BC is not inordinately offensive to anyone of a religion other than Christianity (or to Christians for that matter). Unless there is a real reason to change the current dating within the article to CE/BCE other than Rob's dislike of Christianity, there is no professional or even a PC reason to do so. pookster11 00:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Even in the PC melting pot of American media, CE/BCE are rarely used. Take the History Channel for example, where they do use BCE/CE for religious articles that are not Christian, however they use BC/AD for all other articles (including articles that have nothing to do with religion). So obviously it seems that the media still acknowledges BCE/CE as a method preferred only for other religions besides Christianity, not the other way around whereas BC/AD is preferred for only Christianity. So BC/AD is still the norm, even in a country where we call Christmas "Holiday". Darwiner111 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

the problem, quite frankly, is that some people refuse to let us move on unless it reads BCE/CE :/. Homestarmy 23:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

We have this little policy called NPOV. Maybe you have heard of it? Asserting that Jesus is the Messiah/God violates that policy. Guettarda 09:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Asserting that the most impacting opinion on Christ is that He is the Messiah is not a violation. Furthermore, you could theoretically have a Messiah from something without him being God, though the only one so far in history was reported to be God and did everything from the perspective of being God and impacted history the most due to the widespread belief that He was God, this is not merely conjecture I assure you. Homestarmy 14:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

BC does not assert that "that the most impacting opinion on Christ is that He is the Messiah". It asserts that He is the Messiah. Messiah ("Annointed One") has a specific meaning. Asserting Jesus is the "Annointed One of God" (which is what the phrase really means) asserts (a) that Jesus is the one promised in the Bible and (b) that there is an Abrahamic God to promise and select Him. The assertion is not NPOV. Describing the impact (which is what "Common Era" does) is highly compatible with what is called for by the NPOV policy ("describe POVs, don't assert POVs"). Guettarda 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Do most people even know that the word Christ means Messiah in Greek? Nextly, BC means "Before Christ". Not "Before THE Christ", many people have very different opinions on what does and does not constitute a messiah, I even recall asking a question on an Islamic article about this very subject and asking why the article said that Islam considered Christ the Messiah when I knew they did not, the reply I got was that I had a point, but the article Messiah shows that there are very different opinions on what Messiah means. Homestarmy 23:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Dates in intro

Surely, as there is doubt that"jesus" existed it is a nonsense to include dates in the first sentence. His "possible" dates are discussed later. I would favour their removal from the first sentence which gives the POV that he DID exist - as that cannot be verified it is unencyclopdeic. Robsteadman 19:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's the way you want it, we should go to Evolution and remove all favorable POV from it, as there is dought that it is true...by me. Muahahaha :D. No but seriously, because this is an article reporting on Jesus, we should report when He was most commonly agreed to of lived. Even a totally fictional character from a movie or something would have their fictional date of birth right up front. Homestarmy 19:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case it should make it clear that this is not verifiable and is contested. 86.137.71.91 20:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way can you show me a fictional character's date of birth on here? 86.137.71.91 20:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Chococat was born may 10th, 1996, (Though there is a question mark) Angela Belti was born may 3rd, 1967, Horohoro was born November 27, 1985, (Yea, im using Wiki search, it's kind of random I know)Bea (Dennis the Menace character) apparently was Dennis the Mennis's baby sister born on September 19th, 1998, and this one isn't technically human, but the article Astro Boy at the near bottom lists a birth date of April 7, 2003. Jesus, on the other hand, was not a concept which anyone can prove was made up in someone's head, it doesn't matter how fanciful someone's opinion makes Him out to be, therefore, I see no problem with trying to assert Date of Birth in the first sentence. though, I do agree the contest over the birth date exists, after all, His birthdate isn't in the Bible :/. Lemme see if I can clear it up.... Homestarmy 23:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those - hadn't heard of most of them! But you can't PROVE that "jesus" really existed either - there is no evidence that says he was anything more than a concept, there is no eviudence that he really existed. Robsteadman 08:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And you can't prove he didn't exist. The lack of documents that were completed during his lifetime is not in any way evidence that he didn't exist. You're making a huge logical leap based off your overriding POV. Saying there are no "extant contemporary documents" is one thing, that's true, but postulating as you continue to do that 'therefore there is proof he didn't exist' does not belong here. --Oscillate 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The other difference is that with those characters it states FICTIONAL CHARACTER -0 maybe that should be used on teh "jesus" article? Or how about "Although his existence cannot be proven some like to give him dates of..." (JOKE!) Robsteadman 08:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And the dates given are for the historical personage of Jesus. If, scholastically speaking, you discount that Jesus ever existed, obviously the matter of birthdates doesn't matter because hey, he never existed. This goes back to that old conversation Rob, about you trying to involve yourself in things you're not qualified to lecture everyone about. pookster11 00:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That assumes there was an historical "jesus" for which tehre is no evidence. You assume I am not qualified and use that as a personal insult (very good, well done) but I am just as qualified as enyone else to look at evidence and reach a NPOV conclusion. Robsteadman 08:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly there is evidence for a historical Jesus! Give me some authors that say otherwise, namely that there is no evidence. And the qualification reference was, once again, a reference to your lack of knowledge as to how the study of ancient history is conducted. Not that thats anything to be insulted about of course, but when you make the statement that you're just as qualified as anyone else, the fact is that no, you're not. There are degrees by which this scholarship is weighed, compared, and clarified, a process that you are not familiar with, and presenting one or two websites as proof of a point does not an argument make. pookster11 08:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no extent contemporary evidence for an historical "jesus". The earliest mentions of him are in POV documents from decades later. If you have contempoary documents please let us all know but I, and the rest of the world, will be amazed. Using your sneering tone (which amounts to persdonal abuse) is not sufficient proof. Please PROOF - verifiabnle PROOF.Robsteadman 09:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no extant contemporary evidence for hundreds of ancient historical figures simply because all the documents rotted from age, that doesn't mean they don't exist, and when you get down to it, ALL historical documents have a POV, the POV of informing the reader on a topic! Without that POV, Wikipedia wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't be having this debate. Furthermore, your only conclusions so far appear to only land on your personal POV which depends solely on flaws that only you seem to personally see in history. Accusing people of abuse probably won't get you consensus either I reckon/ and finally, the only way to actually prove something to anyone is to get them right in front of the facts, in other words, showing you documents won't be good enough, we'll have to get you back in time right in front of Christ himself, we shouldn't need to compleatly prove anything to report on it. See Evolution, you'll probably get a lot of people who agree with me, though they'll probably say something along the lines of they've proved it already or something. Homestarmy 14:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems with "rob" here, this will never end. We keep going around and around and around. I will repeat myself again - lack of contemporary documents is not proof of non-existance. The documents that were written/completed later were written by people who are claimed to have been eyewitnesses, and certainly could have been. The lack of documents written during Jesus' lifetime is not proof he didn't exist, it simply means there are no documents completed from his lifetime. Saying that is proof of non-existance is a poor logical leap. --Oscillate 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

At no point have I asked for anything stating that "jesus" was fictitious to be included in teh article only that there is sufficient doubt. The article must be NPOV which means it must hedge its bets. There is no evidence that he existed and, as any scientist knows, its not possible to prove a negative existence. The dates in the intro are misleaing because they give a slant that suggests he DID exist contrary to available evidence which shows neither wayu though rational thought would support non-existence. You are, as several others have done, putting words into my mouth and reading more into my ediuts than is actually there. NPOV is the way for the article to go and that means truly balanced on the basis of evidence - not guess work, hope, supposition. Robsteadman 15:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Reading more into your edits? You have continually stated "there is no eviudence [sic] that he really existed" in many different forms. What extra reading is there to do? You seem to not even understand the word "compromise". You will have to understand that here on Wikipedia. NPOV means that all sides are presented, not just "rob's". Again, it is absolutely fine, as has already been done, to state that there are no contemporary documents. But that does not mean there is no evidence, just no contemporary documents. The intro already states that some question the existance of Jesus, does every single sentence have to mention that? I think you believe so. --Oscillate 16:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

And again you read more into my edits and put words into my mouth. Tut tut. NPOV means that all should be based on verifiable evdience NOT that all points of view are represented. Therefore it is verifiable fact that there are no extent contemporary documents - that is correct and NPOV. It woul be correct to state that 'despite this "christians" believe.... " that would be correct, verifiable and NPOV. However to give approximate dates to a life for which there is no evidence suggests that he DID in fact exist - and, as has been said, there is no extent contemporary evidence for that - to use dates in that context is POV. To say, later in the article, that some Biblical scholars have deduced that he may have existed between these dates is NPOV and verifiable. You must stop trying to give everythign a "christian" twist and POV. Balance and NPOV is the way that is needed. If it takes a statement that there is no conemporary evidence in each section so be it - the important thing is that the article is made NPOV an that means verifiable and factual. Not giving in to unbalanced stories which cannot be confirmed. Robsteadman 16:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is to your second to last comment Rob, I tried to reply quicker, but my internet went haywire. The existance of the Gosepl account is not merely guess work or a vain hope, I have one right next to me along with all the other books in the Bible in my backpack this very second. Evidence does not have to definitively prove something in a worldly sense, in trials, people bring many examples of evidence, yet often they do not prove anything, as of course the jury is always free to choose either side. Why should this article not give the reader freedom to decide for themself based on the manuscripts, history, and circumstances in Christianitys's development, rather than just going to the conclusion "Oh, there is no evidence whatsoever that absolutly proves anything"? If evidence did have to definitively prove something as a policy here, an enormous amount of historical figures should all be deleted from Wikipedia, as after all, who can really prove who wrote their biographies, surely anybody could of signed their name on the manuscripts, and all those eyewitnesses accounts? They are all simply a supposed eyewitness's POV. Even I can't prove my own existance more than you seem to want evidence for Jesus historically, after all, who knows if I am really homestarmy, (Besides myself of course) I could be some super smart ultra realistic computer bank to someone else after all if we're looking for definitive proof of everything, if we had to have absolute proof of everything in Wikipedia, then nothing can be in here! What sort of evidence would prove to you, Robsteadman, of the existance of a historical figure? Contemporary accounts? Many biographies of famous people were written several years after their deaths. Non-fanciful sounding reports? Many people have had extremely strange events happen in their lives, why should an account claiming to report on God's life be any different. Universal recognition? People can deny the Holocaust apparently these days, why should they all agree on the existance of a person if they can deny the Holocaust. What is the standard of proof you are working from and how does it agree with Wikipedia policy so that we are all wrong? Homestarmy 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"rob", please learn to indent. Regarding your incorrect statement "NPOV means that all should be based on verifiable evdience NOT that all points of view are represented.", I quote from WP:NPOV: all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias...NPOV is one of Wikipedia's four content-guiding policy pages. The other three are No original research, Verifiability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. NPOV is not verifiability, it most certainly is that points of view are represented and represented fairly, according to consensus and with respect to the weight of the view given the topic. Your statement "the article is made NPOV an that means verifiable and factual" is incorrect. --Oscillate 16:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is most certainly important, but you are equating two differnent things. There have been many scholars who assert that those dates are the estimated dates of Jesus' birth. The intro already states that some doubt his existance, again I ask you, does every single sentence have to have a disclaimer? --Oscillate 16:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps every time a statement suggests that he existed and tehre is no doubt there needs to be a discalimer pointing out that there is no evidence to support this. It is hope, "faith" and guesswork based on non-contemporary biased documents. NPOV - make it clear.Robsteadman 16:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any statement about "there is no doubt", I see "about...by most estimates", and later that some people doubt he existed. I also see similar things on many other pages, just having a "circa" statement or something similar. Again, I think the most you can hope to have stay is to put "supposedly" there and see if it sticks. Non-contemporary documents do not mean that the person never existed, otherwise there would be many historically-accepted people whose articles you should also be starting edit wars in. Do you believe Muhammed existed? --Oscillate 17:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

And you are not also a biased source because.....? Homestarmy 17:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)