Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Archive1

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity | Jesus work group
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Warlordjohncarter in topic Merger proposal

Some initial ideas

{{Jesus}} The template is just there to have something to refer to...

Cultural and historical background of Jesus and Historicity of Jesus are presently protected. There is a discussion going on the former page, which appears to be nearing consensus. User:CheeseDreams is presently working on a major reworking of Historicity of Jesus and Alleged textual evidence for Jesus. My suggestion would be for him to work on a temporary file, say Historicity of Jesus/temp and Sources of Jesus/temp so that we can then collaboratively adjust the neutrality of the resulting articles and upon receiving consensus, bring the new articles "live". Meanwhile, both pages should be reverted to the last somewhat stable version (in the case of Historicity, that was probably about 3-4 days ago), with a note added at the top about the ongoing /temp versions, and unprotected. Mpolo 13:26, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that I can't edit the Historicity of Jesus page because it is protected. It is protected because Sam was vandalising it the other day, and one of the admins who watches his edits noticed. Sam has STILL not explained on the talk page of it why he disputes the factual accuracy or NPOV of the article (which is designed to discuss arguments for/against, so it is whether or not the argument exists whose factual accuracy can be disputed (which is silly, because if the argument can be written down, it clearly exists))CheeseDreams 22:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This project appears to have a POV. Judaism and Islam also incorporate Jesus into their belief systems. Should this project be more specifically titled as it will be developing from a christian pov? (not opposing this pov, just thinking it should either be more neutral or more explicit.) Amgine

I don't think the project is a christian POV. CheeseDreams 22:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Jewish and Islamic POVs are definitely wanted, especially on areas like Historicity, where they are not represented. There are also specific pages for the Jewish and Islamic visions. That is, I think that we can all work together on this. I suspect that there will be more work to do on the Christian/general end, as those pages are something of a mess... User:CheeseDreams is working particularly on the skeptics' point of view, so we're not limiting to Christian POV by any means. Mpolo 20:28, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
I guess my point was the title - WikiProject Jesus - is NPOV, but purpose for the articles such as Jesus as Christ and Messiah, Resurrection of Jesus, etc. are presented as uncontested POV. From what I understand of the goals of this project, I think the title should be moved to "Christian Jesus" or similar. Again, I think this is a fine idea, but not currently explicitly stated.
Who are you? Please sign (and date).
Sorry - Amgine 00:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I DO NOT think it should be "Christian Jesus" CheeseDreams 22:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I also think, having glanced at the Resurrection article, that it isn't about uncontested POV at the moment, it seems to be predominantly about historicity of the resurrection. Wheras Jesus as Christ and Messiah (which I would like to see renamed "Christian views") should take into account all Christian views (n.b. this includes Christian Non-Realists - whom most evangelicals consider evil incarnate, rather than fellow Christians), and thus should be as NPOV as possible w.r.t. that aim.CheeseDreams 22:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe the first process to be resolved for a project is the scope and goals. What is the field of articles this project will be working with? All articles which deal with character (historical or literal) of Jesus, the theological articles exclusively, the historical context of Jesus, critical analyses regarding Jesus, or just the articles someone cherry picks for this project? Or something completely else?

The question of goals, I should think, would first be ruled by purposes of Wikipedia: to produce articles which are encyclopedic in nature. After that it seems the purpose for forming this project was to support articles presenting the christian POV regarding this central figure of their beliefs, which can be an NPOV purpose so long as discussion are about that POV and not presenting that point of view. Amgine 00:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think its a question of what should be in it, but rather one of what should not. CheeseDreams 22:08, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Very well, since no one appears willing to propose a limitation I'll jump in with one.
Proposed Scope of project: Articles focused primarily on the character Jesus/Isa, and his specific context as a religious figure. This would include reports regarding the historocity, specific theology concerning him as a religious figure/deity, etc. This would exclude specific fiction, historical articles which do not specifically relate to the character, and digressionary articles concerning historicity of other characters/events, development/history/theology of religions and spiritual belief systems after the time of Jesus, and non-Jesus visitations/miracles.
Articles to be included after discussion and consensus on the talk pages.
- Amgine 23:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. CheeseDreams 23:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
P.s. is it just going to be the three of us contributing here? Or is sam going to do something constructive for once?CheeseDreams 23:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I believe there are six of us signed onto this project. Mpolo, you, and I are merely the most active in this topic area, I believe (and what I'm doing here I'm not even sure...) I believe we need to wait and let everyone have a chance to comment about this, edit it. - Amgine 00:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sam has inserted "and condense" in the scope setion of the project page. I'm assuming he's refering to a goal of reducing the current rapid propagation of articles about Jesus to a core set, and to manage the clean up and refinement of articles. Strunk's rule #13: Use no unnecessary words. Is this what everyone thinks should be a part of the project? - Amgine 21:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What does sam mean by "condense"? After all, this is an encyclopedia. It is meant to contain as much information as possible (though put as succinctly as possible). CheeseDreams 21:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Unless there is discussion opposed, tomorrow I will add the above proposed scope to the Scope section of the project page. - Amgine 16:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Scope looks O.K. to me. I think Sam's "and condense" is more on the lines of "organize". Right now, the same information appears in several places, often with slight differences, so that a reader doesn't know what is "correct". Most themes should have one "home" and should be summarized elsewhere. Some things will have to be repeated as a matter of course, but most information goes most naturally into one article. Mpolo 17:32, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Purpose of the articles

Here's a first stab at the purposes of the articles. Feel free to comment, obviously. Mpolo 13:26, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Jesus - main article. Should be NPOV, touching on all the themes in the subarticles, but leaving detail for the subarticles.
For some sections I think you need to say TOUCHING. CheeseDreams 22:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agree. In some sections, I get the sense that detail was moved to a daughter article, and then re-added in some form to the main article when a later editor saw that it was missing, thus keeping the main article longer than it needs to be. Wesley 17:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Re summarised. CheeseDreams 22:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Biblical inconsistencies - What is this intended to be? Is it going to list various apparent inconsistencies in the Bible, along with explanations of how other Bible scholars resolve the inconsistencies? Wesley 13:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Christology - theological discussion of Jesus. Presents various opinions.
I would say this page more describes (or in some cases, lists) the different factions of christianity, without giving any weighting to them (which is the NPOV thing to do). Its more a Factions of Christian belief page.CheeseDreams 22:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Christology is intended to present various, often opposing beliefs about Jesus. Since this area is central to Christian thinking, many divisions and factions are because of differences in christology, and some factions can be named by their distinctive christology, but that is secondary to the purpose of this article. Factions of Christian belief would be a much broader topic and would need to include factions based on other reasons, such as the authority of the Pope and so on, that are at most tangentially connected to christology. Wesley 17:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In which case it needs significantly more work. It predominantly reads like a list, particularly toward the end. The title also needs changing/ having redirects pointing to it. Most people won't know what on earth Christology is.
"Christology" is admittedly a specialized term, but an important one, and I think it needs to stay as the title of the article. There are lots of articles that link to it at present, so I think it stands a fair chance of being found be people who are interested in related subjects. Maybe some expansion wouldn't hurt; in the list section, I think I was trying to avoid duplicating information that was in the various specific articles, but I might have gone too far in that direction. Wesley 13:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Merged to Christian views of JesusCheeseDreams 22:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I put Christology back as its own article. If you're not familiar with the topic, you should solicit advice from people more familiar with the field before you undertake major edits like this. Also, please DO NOT edit my comments or any other user's comments. I'm removing the strikethrough marks. Wesley 14:52, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Jesus as Christ and Messiah - Strictly presents the Christian view based on the Gospels. Dissenting opinions among Christian groups should be discussed.
Renamed to NPOV Christian views of Jesus. CheeseDreams 22:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Miracles of Jesus - I think this is fairly good at the moment. Discussion of miracles from faith and from science. List of miracles.
  • Resurrection of Jesus - Discussing all aspects of this central event in Christianity. I haven't looked very closely at it.
  • Isa - Specifically Muslim views of Jesus
Renamed to NPOV Religious perspectives on Jesus (as it contains Christian perspectives summary too)
My thoughts are that it is missing quite a lot of stuff and is rather uncritical (thus POV), see my unfinished attempts at it on the now locked Historicity of Jesus page. CheeseDreams 22:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Finished change to sources article. CheeseDreams 13:51, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Historicity of Jesus - Lots of work has been done recently, and the page is currently locked in a protected mode. We need to decide direction.
I think it would be more accurate to say SLOWLY. CheeseDreams 22:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Initial observations (by CheeseDreams)

Isn't Sources of Jesus a sub element of Historicity (from a general point of view, rather than the particular articles)? CheeseDreams 21:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's a "big" subtopic, which pretty much has to have its own article w/summary section in the main one. Mpolo 08:18, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, obviously, but I think that should be reflected in the infobox. CheeseDreams 22:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chronology & Timeline - Why are these seperate articles? They should be merged. CheeseDreams 21:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mostly because Timeline is just a list of dates, while Chronology is a textual discussion of the "why". The page would be too long combined. Mpolo 08:18, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Really? It doesn't look long to me. Anyway, can't it just be linked from the Chronology page? the infobox looks like they are rival articles. CheeseDreams 22:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Christ & Messiah - This article seems POV, very anti certain groups which also claim to be Christians. Should mention what the early church heresies are, with links. Gnosticism. Arianism. Manicheism (this is probably typo). etc. CheeseDreams 21:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Partly dealt with. CheeseDreams 22:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Historicity - This article is unfinished (I know, Im the one who hasn't finished it). CheeseDreams 21:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Christ & Messiah should be in the same place as other religions views And maybe renamed something like "Christian views".CheeseDreams 21:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That occured to me as well. Mpolo 08:18, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
RenamedCheeseDreams 22:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Miracles of Jesus - This should be in a group of articles called something like "content of the new testament", which can be linked to. CheeseDreams 21:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Resurrection - should mention that the particular section in the last chapter of mark is disputed (it even has its own article - Mark 16), should mention John is disputed (Authorship of John). Should NOT use abbreviated bible references - people not familiar with the bible will have no idea at all what "Cor", "Pet", "Gal" is or how to find it or even how to find "Cor, pet! Gal?" (should be said with a Geordie accent). CheeseDreams 21:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Surprised that it doesn't. The book names should be at the very least wikilinked. Full names is probably best. Mpolo 08:18, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Resurrection - Historicity should be merged (eventually) to Historicity of Jesus, or a sub-article of it. In fact, most of the Resurrection article is about historicity.CheeseDreams 21:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But the article has a focus. I'd say to keep it, but link from Historicity (and summarize). Mpolo 08:18, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
It does indeed have a focus. It seems to be historicity. I think, at the very least, the title ought to be changed to "Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus", if it isn't to be merged. I haven't looked at it properly, but it may just be going back over the same historicity arguments again, which is mindless duplication. CheeseDreams 22:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Another option would be to make "Historicity" one section of the Resurrection article, and add an additional section like Theology, and possibly others. Wesley 18:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the main jesus article - Cultural and historical background is supposed to be a summary, its threatening to become an article in addition to the main one, likewise names & titlesCheeseDreams 21:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done CheeseDreams 22:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Life & Teaching according to the new testament (main Jesus article)- this should be a summary and a new article.CheeseDreams 21:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done CheeseDreams 22:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Both those sections are getting long. I think that "Life and Teaching" is in some sense the "main thing" that the Encyclopedia article should address in the parent article, but I'm not opposed to a generous summary and link to a more detailed page (which links to Miracles, obviously). Mpolo 08:18, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Done CheeseDreams 22:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I fear this is always going to be problematic, simply because the points of view here are too numerous and contentious to cover adequately. Wesley 18:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Condense

We need vitally to condense and differentiate the articles in this project relating to the sources about, history of, and debate regarding the documented circumstances of Christ here on earth. I am an inclusionist, and don't begrudge cheese his "Jesus was apollo" or whatever POV, it should be included, but certainly not as the forefront of something like Historicity of Jesus (a poor title for an article anyway, and one which should certainly be merged). Cultural and historical background of Jesus, Alleged textual evidence for Jesus, Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus, Jewish view of Jesus,Detailed timeline for Jesus, Chronology of Jesus' birth and death, Biblical inconsistencies, Chronology of Jesus' birth and death, and Isa should all be examined in this light, to see how content can be differentiated between them, and where mergers might be made. I intend to delete as little content as possible, but "works in progress ought be placed on user name spaces, or at least article spaces, like Historicity of Jesus/New version. Sam [Spade] 00:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you're basically right. We have a whole lot of good information here, but need to organize it so that it is all easily findable and that the most basic material -- that which an educated person would be expected to know about the subject -- should be on the first pages we come to via navigation. There will of course be disagreement about what is basic, but hopefully we can work that out. Mpolo 08:17, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
I agree of course, and think it would be nice if the article titles were something it is concievable a reader might type into the search bar ;) I know thats not always easy, but I also think we could do alot in the way of making this project user friendly. Sam [Spade] 12:19, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I 100% disagree with Historicity of Jesus being re-named or merged. I feel that any attempt to do so is an attempt to supress the discussion and critical elements of the Historicity of Jesus debate. CheeseDreams 22:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You single handedly made that one of the worst articles on the wiki, so your position on various topics fails to enthuse me. Sam [Spade] 23:22, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Probably CheeseDreams just copied and pasted stuff from a nineteenth century propaganda pamphlet from the internet where the author wanted to prove (rejected by most scholars) that Jesus was a pagan myth. That's why he started the article with a list of pagan gods. Why did he do that? It's obvious where that's going. He wants to prove his personal faith rather than present the majority and minority scholarly view on the topic. All edits by CheeseDreams should be reverted. He seems interested only in propagating his personal faith and doesn't seem interested in facts, as should be obvious when he even refused to admit that most scholars accept Jesus as a historical figure but reject all miracles and resurrection. His refusal to even admit that shows that either he is just ignorant or worse ... OneGuy 03:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, I pieced it together from a wide variety of sources (which included discovering a set of free-for-use scanned photographs of early pre-christian christian-like imagery). I started it with pagan gods because the structure seemed to work best as (1) superficial elements - non-Q additions to luke not present in mark, esoteric elements such as Lazarus, christian naming and depictions, etc. (2) lack of evidence for Jesus as real split by each type of source (official governmental, secular, jewish (i.e. talmud), validity of the bible as a textual source (historiographical issues), etc. (3) the Gnostics - was Jesus originally intended to be real, with discussion on each group of the new testament - paul as a gnostic, secrets in the synoptics, gnostic texts, priority etc. This seemed to me the most structured structure, other arrangements that I contemplated seemed more scattered and erratic. In addition, this order is roughly chronological. To insist on reverting all my edits is a huge violation of wikipedia policy, and will result in arbitration. CheeseDreams 21:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Trying to stay on-topic, what are the considerations of the articles in Category:Jesus? Which fall into the scope (above, under initial thoughts), which itself has not yet been settled on? - Amgine 06:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we should concentrate first on the "core articles" (the ones directly linked in the template), though perhaps some others will become important to "fold in" to our strategy.
As for "Historicity", I think that everyone agrees that what is there now (and protected) is unacceptable. Cheese is interested on working on the article, so I'd say we let him or her continue working on a temp page. When Cheese is ready, the rest of us can review the article for point of view, appropriateness, etc. I think that Cheese is capable of writing a good, neutral article, and should be given the benefit of the doubt in the meantime to do so. (I would also advocate rolling back the current page to something "presentable", even if it may not be perfect.) Mpolo 13:40, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
I would be glad to give CheeseDreams the benefit of the doubt if he would agree that both majority and minority scholarly views should be presented, and to identify which views are more widely held and by whom. I could be wrong, but it seems that (s)he has avoided a commitment to this basic principle. Wesley 17:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(Aside) have you read Origen's (2nd century) refutation that Josephus mentioned Jesus (as claimed and demonstrated by Eusebius in the 4th century)? It kind of knocks the wind out of the only remotely plausible secular record for Jesus (as opposed to for Christians). Now Im not sure how the side for There-are-secular-witnesses-particularly-Josephus-to-Jesus'-historicity deal with that, but if there is an explanation Ill put it in. CheeseDreams 21:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Working with new editors can be very difficult at times, but its something we must get used to. I agree with some of OneGuy's assessments of the situation, but not of his pervasive prescription. In other words, I feel that Cheeses' edits have been agenda driven rather than NPOV driven, but I don't agree that all of them should always be reverted. Rather I think the NPOV principle should be expressed more clearly to cheese, so that cheese can more easily work within our process. It is vital that all verifiable views are included, but clearly having an article called "Historicity of Jesus" (a terrible title that absolutely no one would ever type into the search bar w/o previously knowing of the page) which begins with a focus on interpreting Jesus as a modern incarnation of pagan deities is outlandish. That said, there could be an article devoted to such unusual concepts, so long as it is neutral, verifiable, and properly titled. Also, there can be some mention of such theories, neutrally presented deep within an article on "understanding Christ" or something like that. I think we need an agreement amongst ourselves if we are to function as a project. More on that below. Sam [Spade] 17:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The non-findability of the title "Historicity of Jesus" is perhaps mitigated by the fact that the link is included in the template on all the articles. "Existence of the historical Jesus" uses normal words, but is probably even less likely to be found by using the search bar. The article has a focus (or had before we sank into edit wars. sigh.) and identity -- do you have a better title to suggest? Mpolo 09:14, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Most people who know the subject will type in Historicity of Jesus. The title "existence of the ...." is POV, and should be "alleged existence of the ....". Can we ask someone (e.g. Angela) if they can get us a count of how many hits Historicity of Jesus gets when users have not clicked a link to get there? CheeseDreams 11:52, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I consider that Sam's edits are agenda driven, particularly given his past history (as attested to by User:Spleeman on his talk page), and that he adds dispute tags to articles without explaining why, even when asked. CheeseDreams 21:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wesley, can you define "scholar" in a manner which could be universally agreed upon? Keeping in mind that the term once refered to students under the guide of an instructor. Then, would a majority include those people for whom belief in the literal existence of Jesus is a precondition of their faith, those for whom disbelief in the literal existence of Jesus is a precondition of their lack of faith, or only those who approach the subject critically due to a lack of subjective interest? I think what I'm trying to point out is there is no reasonable undisputable way to define "majority" or "minority" view.
I was under the impression that we had agreed (elsewhere) to discard the term "scholar" when it was disputed and use "academic" instead. CheeseDreams 21:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For me, the two terms mean more or less the same thing. If some people are happier with "academic", I say use "academic". The problem we hit before was that some editors felt that "scholar" in the context of an article about religion automatically meant "Christian student of the Bible, whose views can be safely ignored because they are driven by faith and not science" (or something to that effect). These editors felt that "academic" would be more general. I think we're more or less agreed that "academics" are published writers with a doctorate or equivalent, though some editors said that in England, no one gets a doctorate, so that a Masters degree should be equivalent. Others (including myself) said that Oxford gives out Masters degrees to any student with a Bachelor's degree in exchange for 100 pounds after 5 years have gone by, so that we can hardly count that on the par with a doctorate from other systems.
While the Oxford thing is true, it is because the standard of Oxford Batchelor degrees is so high, and requires such intense working, that it is equivalent to a Masters degree from a lesser university. Many professors that come into the system via oxford do not have more that a converted (for £10 (its actually only £10 as far as I remember)) Batchelor's degree. For example, if you get a First Class batchelors degree (from Oxford), you are invited to All Souls college for dinner. If you appear to be the sort of person they are looking for, you get admitted to All Souls and have 7 years residency and maintenance paid for, without having to actually do anything - its considered that you are simply clever enough to produce theorem and research in this manner. Admission to All Souls is only by them asking.CheeseDreams 11:52, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Jesus guideline

I would like to create an official guideline for this project, which all members must agree to. I think it should be something like the following:

"We as members of the WikiProject Jesus strive to present information regarding the religious and historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth in a neutral and coherent manner, accessible to our readers. We intend to include all verifiable interpretations presented to us in a fair and balanced manner, with an emphasis on those views which are most largely agreed upon and verified in the most expert of sources We intend to make it as easy as possible for ordinary readers as well as scholars and students to move within the series of articles included in WikiProject Jesus, and to ensure that information is properly categorized and linked to / condensed in a readable and utilitarian manner."

Sam [Spade] 17:49, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would be opposed to any "mission statement" beyond that of Wikipedia. - Amgine 18:00, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Same opinion as Amgine. CheeseDreams 21:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Slrubenstein 18:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How would you oppose, Slrubenstein? Your not even a member of the project (yet at least ;). Anyhow, the purpose of my guideline was in helping explain to project members the policies and guidelines already present in the project. Why the above would be disagreeable to you I can not fathom, but if you have a better idea, lets hear it. Sam [Spade] 18:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think the only guidelines necessary or appropriate are the guidelines for all Wikipedia articles, and they need not be repeated here (merely followed!) Slrubenstein
I don't object to the "guideline" per se, but there may be a little bit of POV squirming here with the "emphasis on those views which are most largely agreed upon and verified in the most expert of sources". We don't want to silence minority opinions. Indicate that they are minority opinions, yes, but not try to silence them. (I'm not accusing you of trying to silence them, Sam.) The point of emphasizing the points of broad consensus is probably good as a rule of thumb, but not at the expense of letting the minority have its say. That said, I don't plan to go out of my way looking for every possible minority opinion. The most important things for us to decide is the scope and that we all really believe in producing something that is neutral and informative. Mpolo 18:46, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

I can't say I disagree w any of the comments, and I ment this "guideline" mainly as a springboard for discussion of our devotion to project guidelines, which it appears to have served as. Sam [Spade] 02:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Articles

Ive just found this List of Jesus-related articles Its EXTREMELY POV. Doesn't even mention Roman Catholicism, but it can give you 25 different kinds of fundamentalist protestant, for example. CheeseDreams 01:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thats helpful, thanks. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 23:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So, you can add to the list. List pages are almost by definition POV, at least when they are first created. It has had so few edits, it couldn't be expected to cover all POVs (there is a Pope link, though, so RC isn't completely left out). Much more helpful than adding an NPOV tag would be to add some links in the proper sections. Mpolo 10:56, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Alleged tomb of Jesus

An anonymous user created this article (at the location Tomb of Jesus - I moved it). Someone may wish to NPOV it, or bring it into the Isa article. CheeseDreams 19:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Mustafaa; it should merged instead into Yuza Asif Ben Standeven 01:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. --G Rutter 10:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ben Standeven's comments on the pages.

I don't have comments on most of the pages, but: Christology and Christian views of Jesus could stand to be merged.

Done CheeseDreams 22:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Unmerged. Merging these two is a bad idea, as Christology is a much more specialized topic, and there are numerous links to it. Major changes like this should not be undertaken with so little discussion. Wesley 14:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Non-Christian Views of Jesus seems like a fine title; it does mention Islamic and Jewish views, so there is no problem on that score.

It also mentions Christian views, so I have renamed it.

Historicity of Jesus is overly large, though this may be fixed by Cheese's latest edit.

Not yet, the sources stuff is now summarised, but the other sections which are stubs in the protected version have significantly expanded. I will soon finish some sections though which can be grouped and broken off into a daughter, then summarised. CheeseDreams 22:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

historical Jesus

After reading some comments on the historical background page, I noticed that there is no article on the "historical Jesus"; I have therefore written User:Ben Standeven/Historical Jesus. It currently relies almost entirely on the canonical gospels, since I don't know anything about critical interpretations of the apocryphal ones. I would appreciate comments on this; does anyone think it should be moved into the article suite? Ben Standeven 02:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Outline of Jesus articles

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think this outline might help the project to organize the various Jesus articles. archola 00:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we get discussion Going?

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I'd like to start working together and strategizing on an approach to building on the success we've achieved in the 1st three paragraphs of the Jesus article. Anyone game? --CTSWyneken 00:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm up for it. The question is, however, "Where to begin?" :-) --Steve Caruso 03:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Start at Jesus and work our way down the outline? The Jesus article is starting to get long again; maybe some data can be condensed & moved to subarticles? Any other ideas? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 08:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a master list of all articles related to Jesus? It might be good to compile one. Another idea would be to check and see what standard encyclopedias include, check against the Jesus article and try to limit the content to such. We would then make sure all subarticles are linked to the main Jesus article and suggest moving excess detail to one of them. Then.... Sound like a plan? --CTSWyneken 13:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about a master list, but the outline I mention in the section above lists all the articles I know of on the subject. If I'm missing any, feel free to add them. Aiden's done some work on the life and teachings/bio section based off of the outline. It can also be found at Talk:Jesus/Related articles. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 13:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Content forking with Chapters

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ive started a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible#Content forking and the Bible about whether having articles about John 20, Matthew 27, Luke 23, and Mark 15, as well as articles about the Passion and the Death of Jesus, constitutes content forking, or is otherwise a bad idea.

I was hoping some people might join the discussion there and tell me whether you agree with my stance or not. Clinkophonist 13:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Historical Jesus

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Its a good article but the title is a bit awkward.

It seems to assert that Jesus existed (which Historicity of Jesus claims is disputed rather than universally agreed upon fact), and that its content is a completely factual reconstruction of exactly who Jesus was (c.f. various Christian groups disputing this).

What it does not contain is [[Historical critical analysis of the Bible and early Christian traditions in order to assertain scientifically how much of the Biblical description of Jesus is likely to be true, and a reconstruction of the significant details of Jesus' life based upon this]]

What it actually contains is a Scientific reconstruction of the day to day life of a person of similar cultural background to Jesus living in the same time period and carrying out a similar style of ministry. But that isn't a very good title - its far too long for a start.

I think the article desperately needs renaming, but Im not sure what people think would be more descriptive in regards to its content? Clinkophonist 14:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

36000 non existing articles

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You might be interested in:

Clinkophonist 19:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one actually still alive?

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Or is there someone else still taking part in this WikiProject? Clinkophonist 20:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This looks pretty dead to me. A waste and a shame if in my opinion. Want to attempt and revive it into something useful? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 22:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been around... Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 09:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Poll regarding the 'Jesus' article

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the 'Jesus' discussion page there has been some discussion regarding whether that page should be more neutral rather than being slanted primarily toward Christianity. I in fact just set up a poll to gauge opinion as to how the topic should be introduced in that article. If anybody monitoring this discussion wishes to register an opinion in that poll please do so. --Mcorazao 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Conversion to task force?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all. I'd like to recommend that this inactive project be converted to a task force of WikiProject Christianity, which would help by providing the relevant infrastructure, and letting you get on with fixing the articles. I've suggested to WP:X that they contact you concerning this as well.

-- TimNelson 05:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It has been suggested, given the large number of Christianity projects and other projects out there (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Prophets of Islam and some of the Judaic projects) which all have a pronounced interest in articles relating specifically to Jesus, that a specific work group (probably under the aegis of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity be created to facilitate cooperation on all the articles directly relating to Jesus. Any individuals who would be interested in taking part in such a work group should indicate as much at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Proposed merger. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 21:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Jesus_work_group/Archive1&oldid=1054979428"